Slashdot Mirror


FedEx Cracks Down on Box Furniture, Citing DMCA

nospmiS remoH writes "Wired is running an article about a guy with no money making furniture out of FedEx boxes. If that weren't strange enough, FedEx is going after him, legally citing the DMCA. Yes, the DMCA. Apparently they are not upset about the furniture itself but rather this site that he put up with pictures of his creations (pretty good work really). My favorite quote from the article, '...Avila clearly intended to operate a business from his website because he used the .com domain suffix, the "commercial level domain," rather than .net.' You just can't make this stuff up."

778 comments

  1. Free Boxes by dthrall · · Score: 5, Informative

    I explored both his site and the fedex site... seems to get the boxes from fedex, you need an account... the good new? the USPS will send you free shipping supplies :)

    1. Re:Free Boxes by bryan8m · · Score: 1

      Some guy sent me a TON of those free shipping supplies you mentioned and as a result my porch was filled to the brim with boxes upon boxes. The guy who delivered them didn't think it was too funny, and it turned out to be a mess for days.

    2. Re:Free Boxes by dthrall · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:Free Boxes by Desert+Raven · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't play this game with the USPS. Unlike FedEx, the USPS has very strict terms of use for their materials, printed clearly on each box/envelope. And, since they are a branch of the federal government, it's a federal offense to violate those terms.

    4. Re:Free Boxes by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, one's thing is for sure -- I won't be posting pictures on my website showing off my USPS poster tube bong (DISCLAIMER: For tobacco use only) anytime soon. My USPS "toilet" probably wouldn't go over too well either . . .

      --
      A B A C A B B
    5. Re:Free Boxes by op00to · · Score: 1

      Uh, the USPS is NOT a 'branch' of the federal government. The Postal Inspection Service is a federal law enforcement agency, but USPS itself is no longer run by the government.

    6. Re:Free Boxes by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Postal Inspection Service is a federal law enforcement agency, but USPS itself is no longer run by the government.

      That's irrelevant. The USPS has a legal monopoly on mail and is for all intents and purposes a federal agency. Their computers still claim to be government property when you log on and congress has specific interest in their continued survival.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Free Boxes by drxenos · · Score: 1

      And even when they were run by the government, they were never a "branch."

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    8. Re:Free Boxes by Desert+Raven · · Score: 5, Informative

      From http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/cs04/

      In 1976 the Postal Service filed its first annual comprehensive statement to comply with an amendment to the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act. The amendment, now codified as Title 39, United States Code (USC), Section 2401 (e), required that a comprehensive statement accompany the annual Postal Service budget submission to Congress. The amendment further required the Postal Service to explain and address 1) the plans, policies, and procedures designed to comply with the statutory mission of the Postal Service; 2) general postal operations, including data on service standards, mail volume, productivity, trends in postal operations, and analyses of the impact of internal and external factors upon the Postal Service; 3) financial information relating to expenditures and obligations incurred; and 4) other matters necessary to ensure that Congress is "fully and currently consulted and informed on postal operations."

      From Wikipedia:
      "The United States Postal Service (USPS) is the United States government-owned corporation...".

      So maybe they are technically no longer a branch of the govt, but they certainly are wholly owned by it, which sounds to me like they are still run by the government. You'll also remember that the USPS can't raise postal rates without congressional approval either.

      And from a Priority Mail box I have:

      "This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail. Misuse may be a violation of Federal law."

      Betcha won't find that on a private corporation's packages...

    9. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your website only has one image?

    10. Re:Free Boxes by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my favorite Goatse pic. Why do you ask?

      --
      A B A C A B B
    11. Re:Free Boxes by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Informative
      ...and congress has specific interest in their continued survival

      US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

      Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

      Yup, it's in there.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    12. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why don't we let FedEx know what we think of this action?

      https://www.fedex.com/cgi-bin/qrf2.cgi?link=4&firs t=y&formpage=general

      Here's the message that I sent:

      I saw this article today in Wired:

      http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,68492,00. html

      I think it's despicable that FedEx is using the DMCA to harass a guy who can't afford furniture and is just trying to make the best of an unfortunate situation. Perhaps you have forgotten the time that the owner of FedEx gambled the company payroll in Vegas to save the company.

      As a result of this incident, I will be shipping with UPS whenever possible.

      I also know a few hundred thousand other people who feel the same way:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/08/11/1715204.shtml ?tid=123&tid=17

    13. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you come to this conclusion? The guy only told us about two images that he *WOULD NOT* put on his web page. That still leaves an infinite number of possible images that he would potentially put on that hypothetical page of his, and I can't see how you managed to figure out that out of those, he only posted ONE. Oh, wait, never mind, he posted a follow up.

    14. Re:Free Boxes by dubl-u · · Score: 5, Funny

      My USPS "toilet" probably wouldn't go over too well either . . .

      Wow! When the box is full, where do you ship the stuff?

    15. Re:Free Boxes by Greslin · · Score: 5, Funny
      Heh.. I can imagine the cellblock conversation now:

      "Judges and juries, man. They don't get nothin'. They don't know that sometimes God wants you to kill your family and, like, do stuff with their body parts. Read the Bible, man - God's all into that. So, what you in here for, man?"

      "Eh.. I got these boxes from the Post Office.."

    16. Re:Free Boxes by nocaster · · Score: 1, Funny

      Before USPS will send you your order they will make you sign an Affidavit stating that you will not use their boxes for any other purpose. Having said that, they make great boxes for Christmas gifts...

    17. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I explored both his site ... but now he seems slashed

    18. Re:Free Boxes by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Note that I did not use that capitalized word Branch, I used branch.

      Despite the specific meaning the US Govt attributes to the word, it does not eliminate its more common usage, meaning "a division of an organization" or "a separate but dependent part of a central organization".

    19. Re:Free Boxes by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay- I am going to admit to a funny error. I sold about 40 car repair manuals that I got for free on Ebay about a year ago. They fit perfectly in priority mail boxes and weighed under a lb so it was 3.85 to ship them anywhere in the country. Plus, with priority mail, you print the label on you computer (and pay), tape it on the box with the priority tape the USPS gives you free, and throw it on your front porch. You don't need to call for a pickup as the Mailman is there 6 days a week. (I live in a nice area, so there isn't an issue of theft from the porch, and it isn't visible from the street).
      So I go online on usps.com and order 40 of the boxes I thought I needed. Except, of course, I am an idiot, so I ended up ordering 40 box of 10, thus 400 boxes. I felt like an ass, not so much because of the free boxes (I have actually used well over half of them so far for mailing) but because I my postman is a cool guy and the thought of him with 40 boxes of boxes....
      A good reason to have anything bought on Ebay etc shipped by USPS- if it turns out to be counterfit, call the US Postal Inspection Service. They don't take kindly to misuse of the mail. UPS and FedEx don't have sworn federal agents with guns to investigate fake products sent theough their delivery channels....

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    20. Re:Free Boxes by Emmettfish · · Score: 1

      The United States Post Office is *not* a branch of the federal government. It is a private business. When they went private, they kept a lot of legal things in place, such as the statutes prohibiting mail fraud. Mail fraud is a federal offense, but this wouldn't be mail fraud by any stretch of the imagination. Improper use of a company's materials, mayhaps, but not mail fraud.

    21. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FedEx does not object to giving it's boxes away for free, but under the assumption you will use them for FedEx shipments. Walk into a FedEx store and just ask for a box and they will charge you (well they are supposed to, they do have list prices). Go into a FedEx store, use FedEx express and the box is free.

      Not to mention he is using boxes that they create, with their logo and their name - as well as naming his website "fedexfurniture.com" - and then selling these things.

      He is clearly in the wrong - and if they can cite the DMCA then kudos for their legal team who figured a way.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    22. Re:Free Boxes by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1
      "This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail. Misuse may be a violation of Federal law."

      Betcha won't find that on a private corporation's packages...
      Posting on Slashdot may be a violation of the law.
      Breathing air may be a violation of the law.
      Saying that something may be a violation of the law may be a violation of the law.
      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    23. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, cuntsmear.

    24. Re:Free Boxes by CyanDisaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...Wow! When the box is full, where do you ship the stuff...

      I'm sure it could be sent to SCO...considering that's what they're full of...

      Hope be with ye,
      Cyan

    25. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You "know a few hundred thousand other people"? Maybe you mean you saw a list of a few hundred thousand people who feel the same way as you? I don't even know a few hundred thousand other people - and I doubt I have ever met a few hundred thousand other people.

      Not to mention what this guy was wrong:
      FedEx sends these boxes under the good faith that you will use them to ship through FedEx (walk into a FedEx store and ask them for a box and they sell them...ship with the box and its free). So he is using their shipping supplies at no cost, using their name (fedexfurniture.com) and the furniture which is their name. All of this for a product. Maybe, as opposed to sitting 20 hours a day at his FedEx box, he should go out and get a job?

      Great ingenuity on his part (or I should say his friends) - if he just made this stuff for himself and a couple of friends and said "hey look at this" it would be fine...but he is making a profit on another company w/o their permission - and they are losing money. That is NOT cool.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    26. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      One more thing. I followed your link - it leads to the /. post. Where in the forum do you see a few hundred thousand people agreeing with you? Frankly, a few hundred thousand people didn't even post - let alone sign some kind of petition.

      Why is he modded anything but overrated, untruthful (i wish we had this).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    27. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's not selling anything. Get your facts straight.

    28. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How is he making a profit? His site was down so I didnt get to see it but from the wired article then he is NOT selling anything, and indeed works as a software developer. Which means
      A) he has a job
      B) is poor
      c) probably is reading this article on /. right now

      Woot for reading the article before posting!

    29. Re:Free Boxes by shokk · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think FedEx has a case here. I went to that site and thought I was at FedEx.com, no lie. For some reason it took longer to type into my browser than fedex.com, but I was still confused between the FedEx brand and this guy's attempt to make furniture.

      In other news...
      * Scotch brand tape will be suing anybody making a 3D contruct of tape similar to a ball
      * Swingline will be suing anyone who makes a CD/floppy eject tool out of a paperclip
      * International Paper will literally crucify anyone who makes paper footballs,
      * various rubber-band manufacturers have formed a consortium specifically to pursue legal action against anyone that uses a rubber-band as a device similar to a slingshot or a projectile in itself
      * the Ticonderoga pencil company will be after anyone who bundles pencils together into a tube shape to simulate a solid piece of wood

      Sounds ridiculous? Wait and see!!!

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    30. Re:Free Boxes by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't know where it goes, but when you leave it on the curb next to the mailbox (sans-return address), the mail person will happily remove it from the premises.

      --
      A B A C A B B
    31. Re:Free Boxes by serutan · · Score: 1

      Finding free boxes shouldn't be a big issue. If you work in a sizeable office building, visit the copy rooms on every floor daily and pick up the boxes the paper comes in, the kind with the slip-on lids. When I needed storage boxes a while back, I got one per day on average from a 5-story building. In a month I had more than enough. If you can't wait to gather them gradually, go to a few print shops and ask them to put aside their boxes for you to pick up in a couple days.

      That's if you need uniform size boxes. If you don't mind assorted sizes, the best source I've found is liquor stores. They go through TONS of boxes, mostly smaller than copy paper ones, so they're good for heavy stuff like books.

    32. Re:Free Boxes by Aeiri · · Score: 2, Informative

      but he is making a profit on another company w/o their permission - and they are losing money. That is NOT cool.

      http://www.fedexfurniture.com/

      Where on that site do you see him selling these things?

      He accepts donations, but a donation is just that, A DONATION, not profit.

    33. Re:Free Boxes by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      I think it's a federal offense to use the USPS to delivery biological/hazardous material. And presumable human excrement counts.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    34. Re:Free Boxes by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Great ingenuity on his part (or I should say his friends) - if he just made this stuff for himself and a couple of friends and said "hey look at this" it would be fine...but he is making a profit on another company w/o their permission - and they are losing money. That is NOT cool.

      But isn't this the very essence of capitalism ? Company A screws up somehow (giving away free packing left them vulnerable), Mister X realizes that he can divert some of A's income to himself, A loses money and X gains money.

      Surely you aren't suggesting that X should care about what happens to A as a result of his moneymaking - that sounds suspiciously like social responsibility, in other words, communism ?

      Now that your socialistic tendencies have been unveiled, my red friend, its time for you to go back to try and destroy the Free World by writing and giving away software for free :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Free Boxes by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      Great! Leave it to a communist to be the one to inform me of such an implicating fact. That said, I was talking about candy and rainbow bicycle handlebar streamers, not shit and piss. Come on! Have some decency. What else would you put in a USPS "toilet" and leave on the curb with no return address? A human head? That's just crazy!

      --
      A B A C A B B
    36. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Read the articles. Also he may term it as "donation" but give me a break. Don't give half-assed dumbass statements.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    37. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article doesn't mention whether the furniture is made of new FedEx boxes or of boxes that have already been used for deliveries. If the latter, the people at FedEx must be crazy to object to the practise.

    38. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Now that your socialistic tendencies have been unveiled, my red friend, its time for you to go back to try and destroy the Free World by writing and giving away software for free :).

      Where is my VODKA!!! I MUST HAVE VODKA comrad!

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    39. Re:Free Boxes by Weirsbaski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FedEx does not object to giving it's boxes away for free, but under the assumption you will use them for FedEx shipments.

      Wow, they made an assumption. Sounds legally binding to me...

      Not to mention he is using boxes that they create, with their logo and their name - as well as naming his website "fedexfurniture.com" - and then selling these things.

      I've sold stuff that people gave me for free. That's why they call it _giving_ it away.

      and if they can cite the DMCA then kudos for their legal team who figured a way.

      This is a little scary. FedEx deserves kudos, for taking a law which clearly does not apply, and whacking him with it? Why not go full-bore and call him a abuses-free-boxes-terrorist?

      --

      I am not a sig.
    40. Re:Free Boxes by Gulik · · Score: 1

      Wow -- let he who is not half a dumbass cast the first stone. If the man is asking you for money, and is not offering anything in return, it is a donation, even if that fact is inconvenient to your uninformed yammerings.

      What, is he selling you some nothing? Well, at least he's got some FedEx boxes so he can ship it to you.

    41. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Funny, I always thought of a "sale" as an exchange of money, goods or services for money, goods or services.

      Are you saying now that if I "donate" money to someone and get nothing in return, that is a sale? Should I be paying sales tax? Please advise...

      Finkployd

    42. Re:Free Boxes by rvega · · Score: 1

      And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of things, until the Sargeant came over...

    43. Re:Free Boxes by ScouseMouse · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid they have got too much already. Thats why they send Darl out every so often to dispense it out to journalists.

    44. Re:Free Boxes by Vampyre_Macavity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I'd ship one to Dubya, witht he words "You're just like this box, Mr. President - full of s**t!" written on it in chunky black letters.

      The next I'd send to Dick Cheney. The third, John Ashcroft, the fourth and fifth to whoever's in charge of the RIAA/MPAA, and so on down my "Long List of People who are Full Of S**t (TM)."

      Whoever's in charge of this lawsuit, though, would definitely get one. -Macavity

    45. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this idiot get "Insightful"? He should be getting mod points for "Off-base" because fedexfurniture is not selling anything. It is merely asking for donations. There's an old dude at the corner of my street who does the same thing while holding out a Starbucks cup. I don't see Starbucks' lawyers coming after him for trademark violation. That may be because he is not selling anything.

      sell
      v. sold, (sld) selling, sells
      v. tr.

            1. To exchange or deliver for money or its equivalent.

    46. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that he was *NOT* selling things. This is an important fact.

    47. Re:Free Boxes by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      > That probably wouldn't work as the USPS will not take packages greater than one pound without return address. That said just make sure to weigh it first =SEND_NOT>15*OZ.

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    48. Re:Free Boxes by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      Amazing that such useful information could come out of such a stupid conversation. You are the man! Mod this dude +1 informative. Luckly though, the "toilet" has always been a letter-size envelope. Heh, enjoy that mental imagary.

      And by mental imagary I'm talking about a dude squatting over an envelope . . and filling it with candy and rainbow bicycle streamers of course.

      --
      A B A C A B B
    49. Re:Free Boxes by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight: he can't afford to buy furniture, but can afford to register a domain name and host a website? What kind of screwed up priority is that?
      Oh, it's Slashdot - never mind.

    50. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "two images that he *WOULD NOT* put on his web page. That still leaves an infinite number of possible images that he would potentially put on that hypothetical page of his"

      Is an infinite number minus two still an infinite number?

      Come on you mathematicians out there. I really want to know!

    51. Re:Free Boxes by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      My apologies. Did I say communist, I meant to call you a totaltarian fascist.

      But then again, even if I had called you a cannibal or a cowboy, I wouldn't mean it. So, uh, nevermind. Cheers!

      --
      A B A C A B B
    52. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can setup a domain and site called ozbirdtalksouthisasswithoutcheckingthefacts.com for about 10 bucks. Where can you get decent furniture for 10 bucks?

      Maybe you ought to stay off slashdot as people like you really dumb it down with your ignorance.

    53. Re:Free Boxes by jlapier · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight: he can't afford to buy furniture, but can afford to register a domain name and host a website? What kind of screwed up priority is that?
      Oh, it's Slashdot - never mind.


      No, it's the US economy. Domain names can be had for less than $9 a year, and it costs less to host than to feed a Sally-Struthers-child for a day. Necessities like clothing, food, and shelter, however, are much more expensive.

      Incidentally, he's currently hosted in the Netherlands.

      Good luck, FedEx.

    54. Re:Free Boxes by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      Let me get this straight: he can't afford to buy furniture, but can afford to register a domain name and host a website? What kind of screwed up priority is that?

      I bet he has the gall to eat real food and watch television, too!

      (Everyone knows you can live off of Kraft Dinner and Bovril)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    55. Re:Free Boxes by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      The profit is the free furniture made from another company's products intended for another use entirely, and stipulated in that agreement.

      However, FedEx is retarded to pursue this with DMCA.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    56. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not sure what he is saying, he's just sure he's right. What a numbnut.

      No exchange of goods, no sale, no profit. Donation. Duh. He should learn to google for definition's of words before talking out his rear.

    57. Re:Free Boxes by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, he's currently hosted in the Netherlands.

      Good luck, FedEx.


      But his ass is hosted in Arizona, which means if he really is violating the DMCA, it will apply to his site no matter where it's hosted.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    58. Re:Free Boxes by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      >Is an infinite number minus two still an infinite number?

      Yes. Infinity minus or plus a finite number is still infinity. (Same with infinity divided by a finite number)

      Infact, Infinity minus infinity, due to the nature of infinity, can be 0, infinity still, or minus infinity. It gets even weirder when infinity plus infinity is still infinity. Yeah, infinity is odd like that.

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    59. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh God! We thought that was a mafia death threat.

      -SCO employee

    60. Re:Free Boxes by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Hell, if Fed-up had been on the ball with this one, they should have sent it over to marketing. Instead, some numb butt thought it might be more fulfilling to sue some kid. I hope Fed-up fires the pin head for not seeing a golden opportunity.

      Think of Gerid and Subway Sandwiches

    61. Re:Free Boxes by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Where can you get decent furniture for 10 bucks?

      Fedex. It's free.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    62. Re:Free Boxes by srealm · · Score: 1

      Personally, I use UPS for toilet use ...

      After all, even their advertising campeign says 'what can brown do for you'...

    63. Re:Free Boxes by Savatte · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think UPS' slogan says it all: "what can brown do for you?"

    64. Re:Free Boxes by Fortress · · Score: 1

      "This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail. Misuse may be a violation of Federal law."

      Betcha won't find that on a private corporation's packages...

      Isn't the DCMA a federal law?

    65. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, AviLazar, you must surely have some pretty bad foot-in-mouth right now.

      And to think, you dig even deeper into your grave of stupidity by insulting someone who corrected your mistake... maybe you shouldn't give half-assed statements, dumbass. :)

    66. Re:Free Boxes by billdar · · Score: 1
      But I really came here to talk about the garbage..

      'cause you can get
      Anything you want
      at Alices Restruant.

      --
      I am billdar, and I approve this message.
    67. Re:Free Boxes by JonasH · · Score: 2, Funny
      Here's what I wrote them, in response to their hilarious Terms of Use for fedex.com which they also appear to be using to fight him with:
      I'm not sure I found the right contact form.

      In the "fedex.com Terms of Use" it is stated that "fedex.com is provided solely for the use of current and potential FedEx customers to interact with FedEx and may not be used by any other person or entity, or for any other purpose.".

      I just wanted to say that I'm sorry, since I visited this very website and I have absolutely no intention of buying any service from FedEx. FedEx doesn't seem to like that, but since I have no relations to FedEx besides having looked at its metaphorical street window display, I don't really feel I have to obey these Terms of Use.

      I'm still sorry though.

      Actually, I think someone once sent me someone using FedEx. I'm not sure though. Would that make it alright? I guess not, since I wasn't the customer. How about that everyone is a potential customer in a sense - even if they don't know it? You know, much like the saying "a stranger is someone you haven't met", it could be said that "someone you haven't made business with yet is a potential customer"? Oh well.

      If that deosn't make it alright, I still truly am sorry.

      Oh right, I almost forgot. I only relunctantly picked the option that said that I'd like you to respond by email. You don't really have to respond, since I don't want to waste more of your time, but there was no option that said that.

      Sincerely,
      DELETED

      PS: If you're a real person, you have my permission to print this out and put it on display anywhere your coworkers will read it. Or send it to whoever you like. Working for a company that has such awful Terms of Use for their website of all things, I'm sure you could do with a laugh.

      PPS: I really am very sorry.
    68. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Eh.. I got these boxes from the Post Office.."

      Tough break, I was going to kill some guys but got busted for downloading copyrighted music.

    69. Re:Free Boxes by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about that damn hidden arrow in the "Ex" part of their logo! ARGH!

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    70. Re:Free Boxes by Wizzar · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that I was wrong for using AOL cds as coasters all these years?

    71. Re:Free Boxes by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well i'm smarter than you times infinity!

    72. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      zero times infinity is still zero ;)

    73. Re:Free Boxes by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Don't forget he also has an attorney - although he doesn't have enough money to buy furniture.

      There are also stores that rent furniture or let you pay for it over time - of course, they probably want to see a paystub to see you have a job in order to pay for it. Just one of those pesky things about becoming an adult and no longer living with Mommy and Daddy.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    74. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These young people! Bongs are for grass!

    75. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      No you inept shithead, he is providing people with the boxes in return for a "donation". Technically, and if the IRS cared enough about this guy, it is selling. To avoid paying taxes he is asking for donations. "And for your wonderful donation, here is a free fedex desk." Thats called selling, no matter how you want to term it. If he wants to accept donations, (and then "give away for free" gifts) he better get a non-profit organization EIN number.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    76. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      But he is providing stuff in return. First if he is starting to accept donations, he needs to report these to the fed. Second he may be "accepting donations" but if someone says "hey let me donate to you $50 bucks, oh and that fedex desk looks hot". A week later the guy gets a fedex desk in the mail. THats a sale. If he wants to give prizes away to donars, then he better open up a non-profit.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    77. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      First if he is starting to accept donations, he needs to report these to the fed.

      Yes he does, but that has NOTHING to do with the DMCA.

      A week later the guy gets a fedex desk in the mail. THats a sale.

      Has that happened? I haven't seen anything remotely resembling a sale in what I have read on this.

      Finkployd

    78. Re:Free Boxes by Gulik · · Score: 1

      No you inept shithead, he is providing people with the boxes in return for a "donation".

      In point of actual fact, he isn't. Nowhere does he say or imply that he'll send you anything if you give him a donation. Unless you can find somewhere on his site that indicates otherwise, I'm afraid it's still double-dumbass on you.

    79. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I viewed his website yesterday, and I am viewing it today- and it has been changed dramatically (in terms of content). So, unfortunately, I do not have any supporting material

      It was convenient that on his donation page he has a link to five or so pieces. Since I know his page changed since yesterday, it is not hard for me to believe that his lawyers said "fix up your website a bit".

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    80. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's look at it this way. Let's say he sold them outright. How is that a violation of te DMCA?

      Frankly it is just taking advantage of a really shitty business model. Once again (remember cuecat, "disposable" digital cameras, etc) we see that it is not a good idea to give people free stuff on the assumption that they will use it in a way that makes money for you. Unless he signed a contract stating how he would use the boxes, they have nothing on him.

      Finkployd

    81. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he has changed his website since I last viewed it (yesterday). I have seen his website prior to this posting on /. and he was offering desks for "donations".

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    82. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      The DMCA probably came out, if i remember correctly, because the boxes have the FedEX logo's.

      FedExs business model is a good business model, and god forbid, a company that is putting faith in the people. Aren't we always complaining how companies do not trust us so they DRM the hell out of their products? Now look, a company that DOES trust us, gives us the benefit of the doubt (at their obvious expense) and they are getting screwed....and look some people in /. think they are wrong for doing this.

      Unless he signed a contract stating how he would use the boxes, they have nothing on him.

      Not all contracts have to be signed to be enforceable (i.e. when you buy a CD, you do not have to sign the EULA agreement to be held responsible for breaking the agreement.)

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    83. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      The DMCA probably came out, if i remember correctly, because the boxes have the FedEX logo's.

      And are they digital? Or is this something that should fall under regular copyright now. What clause in the DMCA applies to freaking BOXES?

      FedExs business model is a good business model, and god forbid, a company that is putting faith in the people. Aren't we always complaining how companies do not trust us so they DRM the hell out of their products? Now look, a company that DOES trust us, gives us the benefit of the doubt (at their obvious expense) and they are getting screwed....and look some people in /. think they are wrong for doing this.

      The FexEx business model is indeed a good one. However the idea of giving free boxes is kinda naive. I'm all for people being good to each other HOWEVER you do not often find much public goodwill toward major corporations, given the massive screwing they as a group usually attempt every chance they get.

      This is not different than giving out cheap CUECAT scanners, only to have people figure out how to use them without your crappy software. Or selling powerful machines as game systems only to have people load Linux onto them and not buy the games you hoped to sell. It's a risk you take by giving free stuff to the public with no actual strings attached. I do not see at all how this relates to DRM, except to say that both have the (misguided in my opinion) idea to sell or give things to people than try to enforce a narrow use of them. Also note that I do not support violating copyright in the way of sharing music, so don't think I mean that.

      Finkployd

    84. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      FedExfurniture is digital. I am pretty sure there are no words in the English dictionary "FedEx".

      The images displaying FedEx boxes are digital. He uses the FedEx name continuously - and that is digital.

      HOWEVER you do not often find much public goodwill toward major corporations

      Doesn't that sound a bit wrong? Not having goodwill towards an organization because it is an organization? Last I heard, FedEx has not screwed society over.

      given the massive screwing they as a group usually attempt every chance they get.

      People screw people over everyday. That is not an excuse to continue the vicious cycle. And in relation to this specific issue, FedEx is being kind by giving the boxes (which cost money) for free to potential customers - not for someone to make furniture out of it. And it also goes to tape, boxes, and other packing supplies.

      Also, FedEx is not sueing this guy into the ground - they just want him to stop his activities. I think if he complied with them, he would be OK. If he continues to give them the finger, he may not be so OK. And he is giving them the finger with such comments as "If any shipping corporations have problems with our site please feel free to forward requests to /dev/null."
      This is not different than giving out cheap CUECAT scanners, only to have people figure out how to use them without your crappy software

      Actually this is very different. Also, if I give you a scanner for free, but you need to buy my software to use the scanner - you have the option of buying the software or not using the scanner. By bypassing any security systems (though in FedEx's case it is hard if not impossible to provide security on boxes), any written/verbal agreements you become in the wrong.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    85. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why burn grass when there's a glut of weeds in the world.

    86. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Actually this is very different. Also, if I give you a scanner for free, but you need to buy my software to use the scanner - you have the option of buying the software or not using the scanner. By bypassing any security systems (though in FedEx's case it is hard if not impossible to provide security on boxes), any written/verbal agreements you become in the wrong.

      I hate to be so callous, but boo-freaking-hoo. Honestly, most people could care less about bypassing security measures (secure measures put into place not to aid customers in any way, but to limit them for the benefit of the customer) if it gains them more "bang for their buck". It seems most people are ok with being in the wrong in this way. Region free DVD players are certainly popular these days, same thing.

      I imagine someday (or at least I hope) things like ultra restrictive EULAs, DRM, and all other attempts to lock people into using products only as the manufacturers allow them all go the way of the dodo.

      As for the matter at hand, it seems the only legally wrong thing the FedEx guy did was post pictures of a copywrited logo. There is really nothing legally wrong with him requesting boxes and making chairs out of them. Morally? Perhaps but I bet most people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over it.

      Finkployd

    87. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Honestly, most people could care less about bypassing security measures (secure measures put into place not to aid customers in any way, but to limit them for the benefit of the customer) if it gains them more "bang for their buck". It seems most people are ok with being in the wrong in this way. Region free DVD players are certainly popular these days, same thing.

      And those people who do not care about the restrictions should be understanding when a high priced lawyer comes a knocking on their door. And they do not gain my sympathy. Will you sympathize with a bank robber for getting caught trying to rob a bank? There is no difference here.

      Maybe one day EULA's and such will be a thing of the past - maybe one day people will be honest and not hack to steal things. As long as you have people willing to abuse honest people, you will have honest people trying to figure out ways to deter this activty.

      There is really nothing legally wrong with him requesting boxes and making chairs out of them

      There is DEFINITLY an expected assumption that the person will use the boxes to ship fedex packages - you and I and he and everyone else all know this. And yes, there might be something in his membership agreement (i am not going to look it up) where it says he gets all these free supplies so he can send fedex packages with them.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    88. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      And those people who do not care about the restrictions should be understanding when a high priced lawyer comes a knocking on their door. And they do not gain my sympathy. Will you sympathize with a bank robber for getting caught trying to rob a bank? There is no difference here.

      Region free DVD players and bank robbers are the same thing. You have an.....interesting world view.

      Maybe one day EULA's and such will be a thing of the past - maybe one day people will be honest and not hack to steal things. As long as you have people willing to abuse honest people, you will have honest people trying to figure out ways to deter this activty.

      You are seriously mistaken about the purpose of EULAs and DRM. Even the propoanats of them (at a high level, not the publicity drones) do not fool themselves about that. It is ALL about controling the customer's behavior regarding how they use the product. There is NOTHING illegal about selling movies overseas, but DRM and region coding have been put into place to prevent this. This is only so they can charge higher prices to certain segments of the population. Piracy is the red-herring excuse, not the purpose.

      There is DEFINITLY an expected assumption that the person will use the boxes to ship fedex packages - you and I and he and everyone else all know this.

      Yup, but like I said, there is nothing illegal about it. Breach of contract MAYBE, but certainly no ferderal or state laws have been broken.

      Finkployd

    89. Re:Free Boxes by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      It is ALL about controling the customer's behavior regarding how they use the product.

      Well DUH! They are trying to prevent their customers from copying and giving their friends copies of their property. If, in all honesty, people were just making copies for backups there would not be a problem...the problem resides with people giving it away to the masses - even worse some of them sell it on street corners, some of them release it on the internet so its free for everyone. Yea they have a beef, and they are trying to protect their works.

      There is NOTHING illegal about selling movies overseas

      There are a lot of importing/exporting laws and yes there is a lot of things illegal about selling these products overseas when you do not have the permission to do so, and are violating certain restrictions. For example, the US gov't forbade companies from selling/dispensing 128 bit encryption software to countires over seas (i.e. Netscape). Did it happen, well yea, but was it illegal, most certainly.

      Yup, but like I said, there is nothing illegal about it. Breach of contract MAYBE, but certainly no ferderal or state laws have been broken.

      I am not a lawyer, and I will wager you are not either, so I do not know how far up the ranks this goes. If he is proven to violate the laws accross state borders then it does become a federal issue as it is interstate commerce. Breaching a contract has you sent to court. I doubt he will face jail time (though it is possible if it is a federal case) but he does stand to get sued, and to lose.

      Interestingly enough, all FedEx is asking him to do is to cease and decist. All of this would happen if he complied with their wishes to stop using their product...Maybe he should switch to UPS?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    90. Re:Free Boxes by kenwood720 · · Score: 1

      You: Throw the box on their scale.
      Clerk: Excuse me sir, I think your box had an accident. Ok enough of this potty talk.

    91. Re:Free Boxes by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Well DUH! They are trying to prevent their customers from copying and giving their friends copies of their property. If, in all honesty, people were just making copies for backups there would not be a problem...the problem resides with people giving it away to the masses - even worse some of them sell it on street corners, some of them release it on the internet so its free for everyone. Yea they have a beef, and they are trying to protect their works.

      DRM does nothing to prevent this. It does not even help a little bit. Read the Darknet paper for more info on this but basically it boils down to DRM can never work for this for a few reasons.
      (1) DRM as it stands today is only PKI reversed (give the user a private key and try to prevent them from accessing it). It will ALWAYS be broken.
      (2) All it takes is one person breaking it for it to utterly fail. Frankly it does not even take that as there are still plenty of non DRM copies of things (CDs etc) out there that breaking DRM is not necessary for piracy.

      They are NOT using DRM to protect their works, as this has been proven time and again to not work. What they ARE using it for to ensure joe average cannot exercise fair use rights and has to purchase multiple copies, or to set the stage for a the pay per view model they have been trying to push for decades with no success. Repeat: this is NOT about preventing piracy, it is about dictating use, and preventing perfectly legal use that they find damaging to their business model.

      There are a lot of importing/exporting laws and yes there is a lot of things illegal about selling these products overseas when you do not have the permission to do so, and are violating certain restrictions. For example, the US gov't forbade companies from selling/dispensing 128 bit encryption software to countires over seas (i.e. Netscape). Did it happen, well yea, but was it illegal, most certainly.

      Yes, that is correct, but completely irrelevent to the point (you seem really good at that type of example). I said movies. So I will repeat myself, there is nothing illegal about selling movies overseas. It happens on ebay all the time. It happens via columbia house all the time, it happens on nearly every online video store all the time. IT IS PREFECTLY LEGAL.
      The question then becomes, why DRM with region encoding? Answer: not to deal with any legal issue, just to enforce control over customers (that they do not want) and prevent them from doing something otherwise perfectly legal. This is the point of DRM.

      I am not a lawyer, and I will wager you are not either, so I do not know how far up the ranks this goes.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I am also not an accountant and I do my own taxes. Professional label does not enter into it unless you are taking legal advice from me.

      If he is proven to violate the laws accross state borders then it does become a federal issue as it is interstate commerce.

      Breach of contract is not violating federal law, it is violating contract law. This is a civil matter. The only thing they might have is posting photographs of their logo on a website and violating copyright law. Then probably every website in existance with pictures that might contain logos (on products in the background, t-shirts, etc) is in violation of interstate commerce and a good portion of the US is going to be in serious trouble.

      Breaching a contract has you sent to court.

      Yes, civil court. Think "judge judy"

      I doubt he will face jail time

      Especially since civil courts cannot do that. Punitive damages are all they get.

      (though it is possible if it is a federal case)

      Which it is not.

      but he does stand to get sued, and to lose.

      That certainly is a possibility, if there was a contract and he breached it.

      Finkployd

    92. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a moron.

    93. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly. You'd have to be an moron not to figure that out. Fucking fascist.

    94. Re:Free Boxes by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 1

      There HAS to be a way to mod this up higher than 5... this takes "bathroom humor" to a new level.

      Of course, the other slogan that came to mind was...

      "Fastest #### in the shipping business"

      Tim

    95. Re:Free Boxes by TenLow · · Score: 1

      It may not be mail fraud, but its a government entity stating that the boxes are provided as a service for shipping via the USPS, and misusing (i think it specifically states using them for anything other than shipping via the USPS) them is a federal offence. I dont see how there is any room to speculate on this matter.

    96. Re:Free Boxes by crucini · · Score: 1
      All it takes is one person breaking it for it to utterly fail
      Wrong. Typical faulty dualistic geek thinking. DRM raises the barrier for illegal copies entering the black market. DRM is the 3' fence. DMCA is the security guard behind the fence.
      They are NOT using DRM to protect their works ... [but] for a the pay per view model ...
      Face it, either you accept a content creator's right to control his works or not. If you do, he has the right to refuse sale and only enable rental. And you have the right to seek out different content. The reality is that the top content creators have always had the upper hand.
      So I will repeat myself, there is nothing illegal about selling movies overseas.
      Quite a bold assertion for a non-lawyer. Can you tell me which jurisdictions and which movies it applies to? It's hard to imagine a lawyer categorically stating that there's NOTHING ILLEGAL about a complex international trade issue.
      IT IS PREFECTLY LEGAL.
      But is it cool and froody?
      Breach of contract is not violating federal law, it is violating contract law
      Where did you get the idea that those are mutually exclusive?
      The only thing they might have is posting photographs of their logo on a website and violating copyright law.
      So you've read the letter from FedEx's lead counsel, and you've dismissed the other grounds mentioned there. Would you mind explaining your reasoning? In particular, why does trademark law not apply?
      Then probably every website in existance with pictures that might contain logos (on products in the background, t-shirts, etc) is in violation of interstate commerce and a good portion of the US is going to be in serious trouble
      Rough rule of thumb here - if you're trying to make money with a commercial site based on someone else's trademarked name, without their permission, and you prominently feature their tardemarks and copyrighted works on your site, again without permission, you may be headed for legal trouble.
    97. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Here's a tip when shipping crap. To sprucen up your package, fill it with baby powder, to give it that baby fresh scent.

    98. Re:Free Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah...unsolicited mail is a gift.

  2. Trademark yes, copyright no by Kelson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can they justifiably go after him for trademark violations? Absolutely. But copyright? You'd have to be insane.

    It's constantly amazing to see the extent to which people will abuse the DMCA to get what they want.

    1. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tademark only applies if he is intending to sell products or pretend that he is FedEX (I saw the site, it is obviously a parody and labeled as such), as in the case of trademark dilution.

      He is doing neither, so FedEX really is just strongarming this guy because he dared to abuse their free boxes.

    2. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is insane, but they (FedEx) are betting that you don't have very deep pockets to challenge this and hope to bluff you into complying. (What would be legalese for saying "Take a long kiss at my a$$" to FedEx? :)

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    3. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by calyptos · · Score: 1

      How much do you have to have to justify a copyright? A word? No, that's a trademark. A phrase? Nah. A sentence? Not quite. A paragraph? A page? A book? A series? A library? At which point is there enough content to justify a copyright?

      I should copyright a sentence fragment on my site, and then sue everybody who says it for illegally redistributing my original work.

      --
      http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
    4. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He even looks like a dumb@ss. Nothing to see here. It is like people who steal shopping carts. Seems like they have tons, but they also cost over $100 a piece... and that adds up. We live in a civil society, and to be civil we must force ourselves to obey the rules to make life easier for everone.

    5. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what's amazing is that our governmment "for the people" passed a set of laws like the DMCA in the first place. FedEx is only playing the card they've been dealt. Unethical, perhaps, but the true root of the problem is government.

    6. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by jps3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He could have easily just not used the trademark "FedEx" and minimally obfuscated the full logo in his creations and images. No argment, and everyone would have clearly understood it all. But since he pushed the "FedEx" trademark to promote *himself* that is what got him into trouble. Note I am not taking sides here, just saying he could easily have avoided the entire thing *and* gotten the exact same point across...

    7. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by joeljkp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's up to the judge in your case, influenced by considerable precedent and the quality of the arguments of the two sides. If you have a decent judge, he'll take a look at the work as a whole. If you have a non-decent judge, well, that's what judicial elections are for.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    8. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by pete6677 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, this case has not gone to court or been ruled on by a judge in any way. Any stooge can send out a cease and decist order. It's not uncommon at all for corporate legal departments to try to intimidate someone for running a website which the company for some reason does not like. The DMCA simply gives them another club to swing. In this case, it seems like the only reason FedEx is even concerned is due to what he published on the internet, with their trademarked name visible. My guess is that he will make some slight changes to the site, like not prominately displaying the FedEx name, and that will settle the issue.

    9. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you have a non-decent judge, well, that's what judicial elections are for."

      And decency is in the eye of the beholder, right? It seems the loser would automatically push for a new one which is the problem with electing judges.

    10. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could legitimately argue that he is benefitting FedEx by giving them free advertising.

    11. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by cryptoguy · · Score: 1

      He clearly didn't violate either when he taped the boxes together. Fed Ex put its name and logo all over those boxes...not the furniture maker.

      Photographing the results and putting that on the web seems like fair use to me (not a lawyer however).

      He may have violated some terms of his fed ex account. It is even possible that the domain name violates trademark. But surely there is no basis for copyright charges.

    12. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by OrangeTrafficCone · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you have a non-decent judge, you better hope his robe stays closed...

    13. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's constantly amazing to see the extent to which people will abuse the DMCA to get what they want."

      You obviously don't know people very well.

    14. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... and there are people on both sides of DCMA... the people who want their stuff protected so they can make a living and the people who don't want DCMA so they can take whatever they want for nothing.

    15. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Hey, you better watch out with that opinion here. Only a greedy scumbag capitalist would want to be rewarded for their work. Real people want everyone to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Get with the program, comrade.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    16. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Alexis+Boulva · · Score: 1

      "It's constantly amazing to see the extent to which people will abuse the DMCA to get what they want."

      ...money.

    17. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



      You're right. He uses the words 'FedEx' in his URL and on his website in reference to the furniture. Copyright wouldn't be hard to prove, besides, this guy doesn't have the finances to defend ANY kind of lawsuit.

      But this does remind me of something I noticed recently. A local fashion boutique offers Pabst Blue Ribbon belt buckles. Under closer inspection, I noticed that these were made from snipped aluminum can pieces featuring the PBR logo and the pieces were embedded in some kind of plastic. An enterprising 3rd party recycled a bunch of aluminum cans by crafting these belt buckles and now they're selling them without any licensing going to Pabst. Pretty damn clever if you ask me. Would be hard for Pabst to sue over copyright infringement since the belt buckle maker isn't reproducing the PBR logo... they're using copies of the logo reproduced by PBR themselves!

      Seth

    18. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by BlyGilmore · · Score: 1

      a very good point. i personally had a situation like this with a web site i ran. I don't want to get into specifics, but i got a cease and desist on completely crazy grounds and called them on it. Much like this case, a bunch of corporate lawyers figured they'd send out a letter, scare the bejesus out of some poor amateur webmaster who doesn't want to get sued, and effectively bully a web site into doing the lawyer's bidding. Luckily I knew enough about these kinds of things to realize the lawyers arguments were hogwash and never heard from the organization again after telling them so. [I also have a theory that companies like FedEx have summer paralegals chasing down these kind of things just to give them some work to do ... "here kid ... go find some sites that use our name and try to get them to shut down."

    19. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      But copyright? You'd have to be insane.

      From TFA, it seems they tried that because DMCA lets them demand immediate takedown of the site. They probably didn't expect him to consult a lawyer, who told him it was bullshit.

    20. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative


      I should copyright a sentence fragment on my site, and then sue everybody who says it for illegally redistributing my original work.


      Well, you could, if you could show that that sentence was sufficiently original and creative, but it ain't easy. For example IIRC, story titles are seldom held to be copyrightable. I could write a short story called, "The Geek", and if you later wrote a different story with the same title, I wouldn't necessarily be able to prove you copied me. However, in rare instances you can; IIRC Harlan Ellison successfully sued over the title to his story "I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream." So, maybe I'd better call that story "On Improving the Reproductive Prospects of a Socially Inept Geek".

      Art, of course, is copyrightable. Package designs are an interesting case, because they include both elements of art and trade mark. Yet , copyright is a strange concept to be using here. I guess they're saying by taking photos of the their boxes, this guy is illegally copying, as if he went to a museum and took a picture of an Ansel Adams photo and started selling it. But if there's any justice at all, somebody will take this case pro bono out of sheer cussedness and get this argument thrashed and jeered out of court as it roundly deserves to be. People don't buy Fed Ex boses for the wonderful art. The art has no value to them, but it has great value to Fed Ex -- as a trade mark. That's after all what they're upset about (stupidly if you ask me -- I'd be sending this guy free boxes!)

      Copyright is exactly that: the right to copy. It in general does not give an author power over how somebody else uses his work, unless he is able to sell it as part of a license deal. And that's harder than it looks. I've actually seen late 19th century books with licenses printed inside the front covers that forbade reselling or lending. These licenses were deservedly ignored, and ultimately proved legally useless.

      Trademark on the other hand, is in some ways much more powerful. The rights you have over your trademark include precluding uses that harm the trademark's value. That's exactly what the concern is here, and they should come out and say it and use the right law. Its a terrible disservice to societ to use laws creatively this way.

      This is yet another example of how the DMCA is a terrible ,stupid law that confuses ordinary people about what they are allowed and not allowed to do. As an architect's approach ot problems is likely to involve blueprints and a banker's financial instruments, so I suppose a legislator feels the impulse to create laws. However they'd do well to remember this Chinese proverb: many laws make many criminals.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Do you mean "everybody who says the same sequence of words" or "everybody who reads out my website"?

      The former isn't a copyright violation if they independently came up with that "sentence fragment". Copyright is not like patents - you have to actually copy something for it to be a violation, not merely happen to end up with the same words. As the number of words becomes smaller, the likelihood anyone's copied them from anywhere else (copyrightable, at any rate) is exceptionally small.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    22. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      I hate to state the obvious, but just because his lawyer wrote a letter saying that FedEX's claims are bullshit, doesn't mean FedEX's claims are bullshit. That's what lawyers do. They advocate for their clients. Usually it's because there is some grey area and they think there's a compelling argument to be made on their side. Sometimes they don't have a compelling argument, but they think they can make the other side blink. It is much less often that they know for sure that they are right, and would certainly win a suit. So, while the letter from the dude's lawyer to FedEX is filled with certainties, the actual conversation between lawyer and client was probably slightly less so.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    23. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C|N>K

      You, sir, owe me a new keyboard.

    24. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      There are clauses in copyrights for "derivative works" that are not necessarily protected by Fair Use, and although this looks like it's a clear parody, it's also a (somewhat literal) derivative work.

      They obviously chose copyright because it's easy enough to abuse to DMCA to bypass judicial controls. I can't wait to see if they try to stick him for some sort of security bypass or decryption technology.

    25. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      The Wired article and Slashdot summary are a bit troll-ish, imho. The relevant portion of the DMCA appears to be the notice-and-takedown provision. That provisions basically says that if an ISP promptly takes down disputed material, that ISP cannot be sued. That is, the DMCA provides gives the ISP a DEFENSE to infringement if the ISP chooses to use it. Significantly, however, there is nothing in the DMCA that provides the underlying cause of action - that job belongs to old-fashion copyright law.

    26. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by mydn · · Score: 1

      I would assume that Pabst's lawsuit would claim that the fashion boutique had created a derivative work.

    27. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by FLEB · · Score: 1

      (What would be legalese for saying "Take a long kiss at my a$$" to FedEx? :)

      Just that... on legal letterhead.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    28. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by FLEB · · Score: 1

      However, it isn't a copy. This is where I wish I had an IP lawyer I could randomly annoy with questions.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    29. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I would assume that Pabst's lawsuit would claim that the fashion boutique had created a derivative work.

      A derivative work is one in which one copies a portion of the original work. Selling a piece of a beer can is as legal as selling an ordinary music CD or vinyl record with all but Track 1 cut off. Doctrine of first sale-- they got their money, now that particular copy is yours.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    30. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by slocan · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but there is at least one lawsuit case in which a Company Name in an URL wasn't considered a trademark infringement.

      The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center's decision came to the same conclusion, based on fair use and free speech rights.

      Info on the case from an attorney website.

    31. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      but just because his lawyer wrote a letter saying that FedEX's claims are bullshit, doesn't mean FedEX's claims are bullshit. That's what lawyers do. They advocate for their clients

      In this case I think it was fedEx's lawyer who was advocating with more certaintly than he felt. The box guy has a lot to lose and little to gain, I think his lawyer would have advised caution and to let the site stay down if he thought there was any chance of it being upheld.

      Though I'm sure copyright is irrelevant, the guy was an idiot for putting "FedEx" in the name of his domain, that's asking for trademark hassles.

    32. Re:Trademark yes, copyright no by mydn · · Score: 1

      I agree. I was speculating on the copyright aspect. The real violation is in trademark. The problem occurs because they have created another product, they are not just resellilng a product they had purchased. I can't cut the Gucci label off of a Gucci purse and sew it onto a homemade one and sell it. I can't cut the Rolex logo out of a piece of marketing material and glue it onto a watch face and sell it. Pabst already licenses and sells clothing and other items, I would think that the trademark infringement is pretty clear.

  3. Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I love their generosity.

    UPS, especicially. You can get huge "25KG" boxes intended for international shipping. I have UPS drop these on my doorstep every time I move, all for free.

    1. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Soporific · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice. Thanks for making the rest of us pay inflated fees because you are too cheap to go to U-Haul and buy them like a normal person.

      ~S

    2. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by grazzy · · Score: 0

      It's a free country, remember?

    3. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Screw that - head to the local package store or beverage place. They have tons of boxes used to ship beer, wine, and spirits, and they often wind up just dumping them. They're happy to give them away.

    4. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you don't like it, then tell UPS to stop giving away boxes or ship somewhere else.

      If it saves me $30 in boxes, I'm going to do it.

    5. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks for making the rest of us pay inflated fees because you are too cheap to go to U-Haul and buy them like a normal person.

      Ok, so "normal" means giving out money to some company when you can get the same or better for free. We're on Slashdot, go figure out the similarity of this situation on the OS front.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    6. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Jens_UK · · Score: 1

      Supermarkets have a lot of nice moving boxes, and are often quite happy to give them away. You may have better luck with a local store or small area chain than with some of the larger places. Personally, I like the boxes that the gallon jugs of water come in - quite sturdy and have handle cutouts. Plus it saves the supermarket from tearing them down and bundling them up for recycling.

    7. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Thanks for making the rest of us pay inflated fees because you are too cheap to go to U-Haul and buy them like a normal person.

      UPS's management is the one making you pay inflated fees. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if they hand out free boxes, some people are going to take advantage of it.

      If they felt like it, they could easily fix the problem by charging for the box up front and then rebating the box fee when the customer ships something in it. You can't expect to change the statistical behavior of the general public, but UPS's management could change their box policies.

      BTW, if you want to see an "inflated fee", check out what they charge for boxes at U-Haul. (But I suppose they have to make up for renting out trucks for $14.99 per day somehow.)

    8. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by mekkab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're on Slashdot, go figure out the similarity of this situation on the OS front.

      Its reasoning like this that I find on boingboing.net, and that I don't agree with.

      TANSTAAFL. Linux Distros cost bandwidth, which can be amortized and taken care of in a cheap way (bit torrent..., etc.). Linux costs development time which many developers are willing to give up for free.

      But Companies pay for HARD GOODS. Boxes cost. That cost is rolled up into the price of service. If the cost of raw materials goes up, the cost of the service goes up. If you don't use the service, then you aren't hit with the higher fees. But don't think that this compares at ALL with the cost of an OS license for a copy of code! And to be ignorant of wider scope and say "well, it doesn't cost ME anything" is absolutely true, and completely immature and intellectually bankrupt.
      To be cogent of the wider scope and to say "it doesn't cost me anything and I don't care about anyone else" is much more acceptable.

      You decide whats right and wrong; but be aware of the larger picture.

      /When I moved, I took used printer paper boxes from work. One person's trash...

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    9. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, they charge $0.75/mile. Talk about highway robbery...

    10. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes. He's still behaving like a jackass. A perfectly legal jackass, but not the kind of person you want to invite to your home or go to lunch with.

      It's remarkable how people seem to equate "legally allowed" with "ethical or friendly". He's allowed to talk loudly at a restaurant about his colonectomy and the resulting issues with fecal smearing. It's legal... and makes him a piss poor example of humanity.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    11. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by grazzy · · Score: 1

      Actually I was taking a bite at Americans for at one point talk about economic freedom and at the other time whine about people abusing the freedom.

      Really hasnt got anything todo with america itself, however Fedex is widely regarded as a very american company. Thats reason enough for me and about 1 billion more people to spend my money elsewhere ;)

    12. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by sheehaje · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe if U-Haul and similar places didn't overcharge severly for boxes. I'd be happy to pay anyone for boxes if they weren't overpriced.

      You should be irritated with the pricing (both the high prices and the free giveaways) on both sides.

    13. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least he's not a loudmouth.

      Christ, why are the "ethical" people all so fucking loud and annoying?

    14. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't invite someone to lunch becuase they ordered a few UPS boxes?

      Wow.

      I sure pray that you have been a complete and total saint, to your own standards, your entire life.

    15. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Soporific · · Score: 1

      He'd probably be the same guy who "forgot" his wallet at home so you'd get to pay...

      ~S

    16. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by blackbear · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I did this the last time I moved. Those are very stong boxes. They also happen to be the perfect size and strength to move books. You can put just enough books in that an average person can easily carry the box, and it won't break.

      The boxes you buy from the packing store are far from being as strong.

    17. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      BTW, if you want to see an "inflated fee", check out what they charge for boxes at U-Haul. (But I suppose they have to make up for renting out trucks for $14.99 per day somehow.)

      I needed a fairly large box to ship a telescope, went to staples where the appropriate sized box was $25. I shit you not. Obviously I paid 2.99 for the same box at office max, and still felt overcharged.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    18. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      The way U-Haul makes up for cheap rates is to simply not have any trucks on hand. I have yet to experience or even hear about a move with a U-Haul truck that didn't somehow get screwed up. From now on, I pay a little more to rent from a reputable company.

    19. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by cl0secall · · Score: 3, Informative
      According to his blog, his original intention was to use the boxes for shipping, and continued to be a use for the boxes even after being assembled into furniture. To wit, "Since I frequently ship items, I ordered about 300 boxes of various sizes. I figured this would save me time, instead of walking down to the store whenever I needed to ship something, I could do it comfortably from home. Later that month I saw a picture from a friend of a desk that was made of boxes. My friend, Tom, was in a similar situation in Seattle, and it gave me some inspiration. I decided to build some furniture with some of the boxes I had lying around. I figured, if I needed to ship something, I could pull it off a piece of my furniture and mail it off."

      That being said, there are numerous free sources of boxes. Just ask any local retail shop what they do with their shipment boxes. At my old store we got several boxes each week which were recycled, unless I took them.

      --
      Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
    20. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by supremegeekoverlord · · Score: 1

      I don't know about UPS and FedEx, but IIRC at least the USPS is smart enough to make you sign a waver that aparantly makes it illegal to use them for anything but shipping.

      --
      Genius is the art of making everyone think you know what you're talking about.
    21. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      But it's not free.

      If you ever have something shipped, including mail order that you pay S&H for, via UPS you're paying for it (and all the other people who did the same) through increased shipping charges. UPS takes the loss and makes it up through their prices.
      =Smidge=

    22. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 1

      There isn't anything to sign. Since USPS is a quasi-government agency, they can pretty much make it illegal themselves by saying the boxes are property of USPS.

      In reality, its not likely you will get caught unless you are a giant online retailer sending UPS packages in USPS boxes (though this doesn't make much sense anyway). USPS isn't gonna catch me boxing my possessions for organization or for me to load in the car for moving.

      USPS only bitches when you turn the free boxes inside out and use them to send stuff Parcel Post instead of Priority Mail.

      Shameless Ad- Of all the shippers, I like USPS the best. They have very competitive rates, when compared to the ground services of UPS and FedEx (though, UPS/FedEx might be able to beat on price if you have a high volume discount, which most of us individuals/small businesses don't have) and your packages come in much faster. Average time for a Priority Mail parcel is 2 days across the USA. Tracking is even getting better too - they are doing scans at post offices now, instead of just at delivery.

      I request Priority Mail whenever possible. USPS never smashes my package and they come to my door almost the same time everyday. UPS delivers my ground packages around 7PM.

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    23. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by phriedom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "That cost is rolled up into the price of service. If the cost of raw materials goes up, the cost of the service goes up."

      No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. UPS and FedEx are charging as much as the market will bear. If their costs go down, they make more profit, and if their costs go up they make less. If FedEx and UPS choose to give away free boxes for their own reasons, that is between them and the people that take advantage of it. It doesn't effect other customers one bit.

      I'll give you one example: if prices were strictly linked to costs, then cans of soda-pop would cost more in states where the distributors and retailers have to take a deposit and then refund it when the customer returns the can. Clearly, it costs them something to process and keep account of those cans coming back to the retailer and then back to the distributor, but the prices are not any higher.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    24. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! Is that free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in FedEx?

    25. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by bjomo · · Score: 1

      While the per day fee that Uhaul charges is low, the milage charge is what will get you. $1.29 per mile on the weekend in the Washington DC area. All things considered, its not a terrible price. But my $29.99 per day truck cost me about $150 after milage and fuel. Plus, I didn't even get a full day for that price. Only 7am to 3pm.

    26. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Rhys · · Score: 1

      Water boxes (that hold 6 gallon jugs) are also excellent boxes. They're bigger than the beer/wine boxes and far stronger. Just don't load em too heavy or your helpers will have you.

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    27. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by phoenix42 · · Score: 1

      you could go to the liqour store and get boxes for free too.

      --
      forty-two
    28. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by mekkab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good counter point.

      A funny anecdote is that at work they've made 20oz sodas $1.25. Partly for ease in making change but I can't help but think its because they've got a captive audience. Same thing with most airports; despite being very thirsty I couldn't stomach paying $1.75 at BWI for a 20oz. DCA however seems to be committed to competitive pricing.

      I've seen it go both ways, I guess. I know my wife's primary care physician sent out a letter explaining why the cost of their service was going up. Our response was to drop 'em like a ton of bricks;their underlying costs rolled up into their service price, and the market (us) wouldn't bear it.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    29. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by supremegeekoverlord · · Score: 1

      There isn't anything to sign.

      Well I guess it's your word against mine (like everything else here on Slashdot), but a few years ago when I ordered stuff of the site, the boxes weren't given to me until I was home to sign a form... Anyway, that's beside the point.

      Since USPS is a quasi-government agency, they can pretty much make it illegal themselves by saying the boxes are property of USPS.

      IANAL (maybe you are), but why can't UPS or FedEx do this? Even if they can't arbitrarily declare them to be their property, can't they make some kind of a form -- similar to my aparantly dreamed up story in the grandparent? Maybe they can and do, but it seems to me that if FedEx is suing this guy for copyright infringement, they're pretty desperate.

      Just a thought. Hopefully my karma will remain intact. :)

      --
      Genius is the art of making everyone think you know what you're talking about.
    30. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Starbucks also gets lots of boxes in varying sizes, but they all fit together very, very well. That was the best thing about starbuck's boxes. Just ask well in advance when they get their boxes since they do not save them, but if you go on the day they recieve shipment you will collect lots. All the starbuck's in an area usually recieve shipments on the same day.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    31. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of getting free boxes from UPS. It's not like they're good for anything else.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    32. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by stuartkahler · · Score: 1

      Jesus, just go to best buy, walmart, local hospital or university central stores. You can usually find someone willing to help you find lots of large boxes free for the taking. As long as you're willing to break them down and carry them yourself, they're happy to be relieved of the extra work. Just be nice about it and don't go in late june or august.

      Last time I moved, I was able to pick up about 30 dell monitor boxes for free. The best part is they held a lot more weight than the $5 boxes from the moving company.

    33. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by nolife · · Score: 1

      DCA and nearby IAD (Dulles International) are run by MWAA (Washington Municipal Airports Authority). One of their commitments to the airport customers and maintained through their contracts with the vendors renting airport space, is to maintain the same prices as the same vendors charge off airport property. Meaning, the TGIF at Dulles has to charge its customers roughly the same as any other TGIF in the Washington DC area. No gouging allowed. Some of the vendors actually place some type of disclaimer on the receipt stating something like "Look, you paid the same price here as our Herndon VA location".

      I worked at both aiports for a few years so I ate at the onsite resturants a lot.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    34. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I sort of agree with you, but I think your sense of proportion and scale is all wrong. I wouldn't do this for the reasons you stated, but I don't have that much against someone who will. Really, its up to the Fedex people to change their business, not up to us to conform to some imaginary set of rules to make their business successful.

    35. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Rocko+Bonaparte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is what I did when I moved recently. Licquor store boxes are very sturdy since a broken booze box can mean $200 in alcohol oozing all over the place. I have a short school bus I used to move down last year, and I used it in my house move. I got much more junk since then, and needed boxes to easily transport it around. So I drove my school bus over to the booze store and starting hauling out empty box after empty box of booze.

      I'm sure that looked terrible to a bystander.

      --
      No I'm not trolling.
    36. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't worry, if it gets bad enough, FedEx can just charge a deposit fee for every box/envelope and rebate all (or more likely just a portion) of the deposit when the box/envelope is used.

      The expensive, tamper-proof hologram on the box/envelope will be your guarantee that it is an authentic box elegible for rebate as opposed to all those old, bad, 'free' boxes.

      Problem solved for FedEx. Life goes up a notch or so on the sucks-to-be-you-o-meter for everybody else.

    37. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      You might as well blame the Orange Bowl (sponsored by FedEx) or any television network that carries FedEx commercials for inflating the cost of your package shipping. Compared to TV advertising and other sponsorhip costs, this clever little publicity tool is dirt-cheap. And it makes a neat point about how durable the boxes are.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    38. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      I should have made it clear, as you're not the only person to think I was talking about FedEx - the comment I was replying to was the top of this thread, where the guy gets boxes from UPS to use them for moving, somebody said that it raised UPS prices, and somebody else said "It's a free country". My objection was to the assertion (implied by the "It's a free country") that "if it's legal, it's okay to do".

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    39. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Madoc+Owain · · Score: 1
      "That cost is rolled up into the price of service. If the cost of raw materials goes up, the cost of the service goes up."

      No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. UPS and FedEx are charging as much as the market will bear. If their costs go down, they make more profit, and if their costs go up they make less. If FedEx and UPS choose to give away free boxes for their own reasons, that is between them and the people that take advantage of it. It doesn't effect other customers one bit.

      Sorry, I don't agree. FedEx and USPS "giving" away their boxes simply means that instead of breaking out the cost of their boxes as a separate fee the customer has to pay, they've rolled that cost into their overall cost of doing business. No more money is being lost or made by the entity, it's an accounting trick to fool the gullible.

      For example, I don't charge my customers packaging fees because frankly, it doesn't cost me enough to get a free box and drop the item in and seal it for me to care. If FedEx starts charging for boxes, my costs increase, which I then pass along to my customer in higher prices. I have a choice not to pass price increases along, but not at the expense of my bottom line. Add pressure from shareholders to trim away as much fat as possible, and mix in other 'excuses' like rising fuel costs, and stir.

      How free is your free box now?

      I had the same argument with my friend about the 'free doorknobs' in his newly-built home.

      I'll give you one example: if prices were strictly linked to costs, then cans of soda-pop would cost more in states where the distributors and retailers have to take a deposit and then refund it when the customer returns the can. Clearly, it costs them something to process and keep account of those cans coming back to the retailer and then back to the distributor, but the prices are not any higher.

      Other posters have touched on the fallacy of this example, so I'll leave it alone.

    40. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      So Fedex has to change their business model to make it harder for someone who legitimately wants the boxes to ship via fedex to get.

      In other words, they make their paying customers suffer to try and prevent themselves from being ripped off. Isn't that just like adding copyright to a piece of software?

      If FedEx did start charging $3 for a box but giving a $3 discount to ship something in their box, Slashdot would roast them for being customer hostile.

    41. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Double_Dark · · Score: 1

      Those are the best boxes to move with. Extremely heavy-duty and small enough that even if it's packed with books you can still pick it up. As an added bonus you can pick something to cool you down when you're done.

    42. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Oh for the love of god, please do not use u-haul. Use ANY truck rental company except them. Crappy, broken down trucks, customer service that seems trained to be as useless and annoying as possible, and management that puts the "ass" back into asshole.

      Plus they stranded me for 19 hours with a broken alternator a month ago, and I had to fight for weeks to even get half my money back. Hell, I had to fight all 19 hours just to get someone out to fix the truck.

      anyway, -1 offtopic

      Finkployd

    43. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong....if companies are maximizing profit, they'll set prices in such a way that profits are maximized. This will be (revenue-costs) x (number of sales). If the costs change, this maximization problem will by default have a different solution--resulting in higher prices.

      Shipping is NOT a free market; this can be seen two ways--the limited number of companies in the market, and the fact they're making profits. Profits means they're not 'charging what the market will bear' whatever that means...(that means, that's a meaningless statement)

    44. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UPS would charge inflated fees anyways. During my eBay sales days, I was sending stuff UPS until I found out that they were secretly(*) double-billing by charging the recipient backend fees that often exceeded the original shipping price. My only good experience with them was when I confronted them with proof. The guy says "Oh they're detailed right here on the website" so I said "show me." To make a long story short, imagine the beginning of HGTG with an empty filing cabinet.

      (*) Secretly == 1)not telling me that they were doing it (so that I could at least tell my customers to expect it). 2)specifically stating that they were not doing it!

    45. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Main+Gauche · · Score: 1

      "If FedEx and UPS choose to give away free boxes for their own reasons, that is between them and the people that take advantage of it."

      Fine.

      "It doesn't effect other customers one bit."

      Err, yes it does. At least theoretically. Now practically speaking, I doubt there are many people stea^H^H^H^H borrowing boxes like this. So, practically speaking, there's no effect to speak of.

      But in general, variable costs affect prices. Eager for an econ homework exercise? I'm always happy to oblige. Read a discussion that finds the Cournot equilibrium in a 2-firm model. Then add this exercise: First, using the results on that page, find the equilibrium profit of each firm. Second, take its derivative with respect to the variable cost "c" (read: the cost of boxes). Verify that as "c" increases, price increases.

      Don't like Cournot? Check out his counterpart Bertrand. After reading that, verify that as marginal cost (MC) increases, so does price!

      Don't like any French economists? Then look to the old general equilibrium models of economics (while pretending Debreu doesn't exist). The applicable ideas from that field are simple: if your costs go up, but you don't raise prices, you are no longer earning a decent rate (read: risk-adjusted market rate) of return on capital. You either need to charge more, or move your capital somewhere else. Conclusion? If costs go up, so do prices.

    46. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Jabroni_5000_Deluxe · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you live in California, it often does cost us more to purchase beverages in recyclable containers. Purchase a six pack from Safeway and they throw the CRV cost on top of the listed price at the register. "Deposit laws require that beverage bottlers and distributors charge a refundable deposit on beverage containers. Retailers pay the deposit to the bottler or distributor and, in turn, collect a deposit from consumers. When consumers return empty beverage containers, they receive a refund from the retailer or other redemption operation. Finally, the bottler or distributor reimburses the retailer for deposit refunds paid to the consumer." http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/faq/environmen t_include.html

    47. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, then I can get sued by several wine and beer manufacturers. As if it isn't stressful enough getting sued by one multi-national corporation! Am I only allowed to ship wine/beer/spirits in them? Does it have to be the same brand or will I be in trouble for shipping wine in a whisky box?

      Grow up FedEx.

    48. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soda prices are an anecdote all in themselves. I work at a grocery store, and over the past 6 months, the prices have been steadily going up. They started at 95 cents, to make the tax even it up to exactly a dollr. Then they went up to a dollar. It kept rising until it came to today's price of $1.29.

      The result? My credit card bill has a long stream of $1.36 charges.

    49. Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      If their costs go down, they make more profit, and if their costs go up they make less.

      See the item on your invoice labelled "fuel surcharge"? That goes up when fuel prices go up. I know this for certain; I am one of six people in the company who load the software patches for that project. (Well, actually, we just shifted teams around and soon I won't be doing that anymore, and there will be more like 12 people who do, but still.)

      Oh, and I'll save you all time; I ain't commenting on my personal opinion about this issue. Too many people here know I work for the company, especially since I just admitted it.

  4. Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by DogcowX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's free publicity for FexEx. And now, it's all negative!

    1. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by necro2607 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah it's like...

      Insane Lawyer: "hey, this guy is making our logo and related corporate branding imagery get seen by millions of people worldwide... hmm... let's ruin our reputation with every single one of those people!"

      CEO: "hey yeah good idea! proposal approved!"

    2. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Valiss · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same as before (read: currently) with the record industry:

      "I dont get it. We sue the fuck out of them and they STILL won't buy our products!"

      --

      -Valiss
    3. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      Or more likely.

      CEO:"Hey this guy is telling people how to make furniture out of our boxes. This could cost us lots of money if it catchs on"

      Insane Lawyer:"Don't worry I'll stop him"

      Of course the lawyer was insane for even mentioning the DMCA because that was sure to get it picked up by all the internet news channels and give this story more publicity then it ever would have received other wise.
      I'd bet the lawyer is in some deep shit with his bosses for letting this story blow up like this.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    4. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by mm0mm · · Score: 1
      Bad publicity is better than none. Maybe lawyers working for FedEx intentionally cited DMCA with no chance of winning the case instead of Copyright violation because they don't really care to formally take this guy to court, but just wanted to take advantage of him in order to publicize the company brand via tech news sites.

      See, now the "www.fedexfurniture.com" is very well-known among bloggers, and people who heard this story will remember "ah, there was this weird story about a guy who made furniture with these boxes..." when you visit nearest FedEx station to send Christmas gifts in a year or two.

    5. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so fucking wrong. This is actually the best fucking example of natural selection and Capitalism at work. I hope fed-ex wins and he has to pay millions of god-damned dollars to fed-ex. If he can't afford furniture, either get a fucking job or go fucking kill himself so his weak genes won't be in the gene pool.

      Go ahead - FUCKING FLAME AWAY or WASTE Y0UR G0D DAMNED M0D P0INTS MODDING THIS POST DOWN FUCKTARDS.

    6. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      CEO:"Hey this guy is telling people how to make furniture out of our boxes. This could cost us lots of money if it catchs on"

      Then the CEO is an idiot.

      Companies such as FedEx spend countless millions on advertising. "fedexfurniture.com" is one huge ass advertisement for them. If it costs them $10k in boxes because a couple hundred people get the same idea, that's one hell of a deal for FedEx. They'd never get advertising that good, that cheap, anywhere else. Not for ten times the price.

    7. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by rob_squared · · Score: 1
      "I dont get it. We sue the fuck out of them and they STILL won't buy our products!"


      It's worse than that: "I dont get it. We sue the fuck out of them and they STILL buy our products!"

      --
      I don't get it.
    8. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let them know how you feel!

      Les Bishop (labishop@fedex.com)
      Lead Counsel
      Federal Express Corporation

    9. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      fedexfurniture.com is not an advertisement for them. The only people that go there aren't going to changing their shiping needs because some guy made a couch of boxes.
      You don't think they know what makes good adversting for them and what doesn't?
      And more to the point chances are no one would have even ever heard of this site if they hadn't sued him, and if they don't sue him then there is a site out there telling people to abuse their free box system that gets very few hits. And those hits aren't the type of people that are going to change their shipping habits because of the site.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    10. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      The only people that go there aren't going to changing their shiping needs because some guy made a couch of boxes.

      You don't know shit about marketing.

      Why did Anheuser-Busch spend millions of dollars on those "Real men of genius" commercials? You think anybody switched to drinking Bud Light after hearing those?

      Why does Nike spend millions of dollars on it's ridiculous commercials? Watch this. Not a single shoe in it. In fact, the commercial had nothing to do with shoes at all.

      Marketing by large corporations is about brand awareness, you doof. It has little to do with convincing customers to purchase your products or services. Were I the CEO of FedEx, I'd give this guy all the free boxes he needed, pay him for some links back to FedEx, then quietly tweak my supplies ordering system to discourage everyone and their dog from doing the same thing.

      Instead, they spent 50 times more money on lawyers than "fedexfurniture.com" would have ever cost them in boxes. Seems they understand marketing about as well as you.

    11. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      Well since FedEx asked him to take down the site and I know they know more about marketing then you could ever dream of.
      You lose.

      Let's imagine a site that says
      'Wal-Mart - A great place to shoplift'
      Sure it's got Wal-Mart's name in it, but it's going to cost them a lot more then it makes them.
      That's not good advertising.

      And you are right, the best aproach probably would have been to talk with him and gotten him to maybe mention how strong FedEx boxes are so they make good furniture (and good for shipping) but just because the lawyer took the heavy handed approach doesn't make it wrong. The fact that this blew up into a big news story did hurt though.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    12. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad to think that Fed Ex could have made something incredibly positive out of this and instead, turned it horribly negative. Who wouldn't want to see the cool commercials they could have made with him and his Fed Ex boxes. This is a good example of what is wrong with businesses today.

    13. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      I don't know if they're stupid or just mean . . .

      When I ship stuff, I'd like to think it'll get there in good shape. One way I ensure this is with sturdy packaging.

      OK, Now here's an independent website that shows just how sturdy FedEx packaging is in a clever way . . . What do they do? SHUT IT DOWN! Holy crap!! They should be LINKING to this guy's site. I guess lawyers wouldn't know a good idea if it was gnawing their asses off.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Indeed. They should have sponsored him... They should have made a competition out of it.
      FFS the amount of dirt cheap publicity they'd have got would be worth the boxes.

      --
      Deleted
    15. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      Well since FedEx asked him to take down the site and I know they know more about marketing then you could ever dream of.

      Wow, you seem so confident. How do you figure FedEx knows more about marketing than I? You don't know who I am, let alone have a clue as to my background. Let me guess, you assume since I'm "some dork on Slashdot" and FedEx is a huge company, that automatically makes their employees more knowledgable? For all you know I am a senior market analyst for UPS.

      Leaving out this idiotic move, which you agree is not the correct approach (therefore, it seems you, too, understand marketing and brand awareness better than FedEx): FedEx has 31% of the small parcel shipping market compared to UPS' 48%. Now, tell me again how well they understand marketing?

    16. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure you didn't mean "SCOgroup" instead of "record industry"?

    17. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by ces · · Score: 1

      Hmmm ... there is a thought.

      Perhaps one of the shipping services should sponsor milk carton races (usually either on land or water depending on the event. Prizes are typically awarded for both finishing first and for the most creative entry) with the stipulation that all of the entries must be made out of their logoed shipping/packaging materials (provided free of charge, of course).

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    18. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by westlake · · Score: 1
      It's free publicity for FexEx. And now, it's all negative!

      so the guys in down in shipping heve taken to reading Slashdot?

    19. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      It's free publicity for FexEx.

      I know! I'd never even heard of the guys until I saw the article.

      Next thing you know, there'll be a competitor to Coke or something!

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    20. Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Fortunately NewEgg now offers UPS shipping.

      They can at least find my house.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. mighty fine by get+out+of+debt · · Score: 0

    Mighty fine furniture there, should be coming to target near you soon. http://www.fedexfurniture.com/diningtable.html Ge actually used it on a date.

    --
    Bytes - IT Community
  6. It does sound silly, but... by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think fellow used fedex.com to order a whole lot of boxes with no intention of using them to actually ship stuff in. It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there. So I can see why FedEx would take umbrage at his using the boxes they're paying for to make furniture, and then turning around and showing everyone in the world how what a bunch of suckers FedEx is for giving boxes away for free.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 5, Funny

      But information (and shipping boxes) WANT to be free... :-)

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    2. Re:It does sound silly, but... by necro2607 · · Score: 4, Informative

      However, none of that even remotely justifies blatant abuse of the legal system...

      Yeah, so they don't like it... they probably don't like other people using competitors like UPS or Purolator, but that's part of doing business... and it's no grounds for legal action at all.

    3. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you are using Ketchup for its intended purpose when these boxes are being used for furniture instead of shipping items. So is Fed Ex going to sue me when I give my little brother(2yr) a fed ex box as a toy? See creativity.

      2 cents.

    4. Re:It does sound silly, but... by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems like they would have come clause in their free box request thingy, to ensure you use the boxes for shipping via fedex, and not for personal use. I had no idea you could get tons of free fedex boxes, if I had known I might have gotten em last time I needed boxes. Anyways, if they don't have such a clause, they need to fix it. If they do, they need to prosecute this guy for violating that clause, in effect stealing their boxes. Otherwise they need to STFU.

    5. Re:It does sound silly, but... by interiot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Oh, c'mon now...

      1) If ANY kind of lawsuit could be brought for "buying too many boxes, and then using them in an unapproved manner", it would be in small-claims court.

      2) Since they couldn't find a way to sue him for ketchup violations, they decided to sue him for trademark violations?!? And the argument involves DMCA and the .com domain name? And a lawyer gets paid far far too much to draft this lawsuit up, so they could sue a man who can't afford Ikea?? That's comedy man!

    6. Re:It does sound silly, but... by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then they should charge for the cost of the empty boxes. This guy showed publicly something that possibly thounsands of people do in one form or another. "Free" (as in beer) stuff tends to be abused this way. However, the guy might still have payed the few cents the boxes if it saved him the furniture.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    7. Re:It does sound silly, but... by wgray8231 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't see any pictures. :(

      The price of ketchup is factored into the price of the food on the menu. If it's the same for FedEx boxes, they should definitly go after him for abusing their service.

      However, if he's paying for the boxes, what's the harm?

    8. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Serveert · · Score: 1

      You are probably correct: free fedex boxes

      Using the DMCA is disgusting of course, I'm sure there are better ways to stop leeches like this punk.

      --
      2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
    9. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Fed-Ex could actually make him pay....him using the boxes for furniture could be considered theft of services.

      --

      Gorkman

    10. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Otter · · Score: 1
      Yeah, so they don't like it... they probably don't like other people using competitors like UPS or Purolator, but that's part of doing business... and it's no grounds for legal action at all.

      I'm sure they have legal grounds for denying the guy a supply of free boxes, and I'd certainly back them ethically on it. The DMCA claim is just completely nuts, though -- it's like they're getting legal advice by reading Slashdot at -1.

    11. Re:It does sound silly, but... by bn0p · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I can see why FedEx would take umbrage at his using the boxes they're paying for to make furniture, and then turning around and showing everyone in the world how what a bunch of suckers FedEx is for giving boxes away for free.

      Ok, so FedEx has a reason to be peeved with this guy. They could cut off his account (if he has one) and put his name on a blacklist of folks that cannot receive free boxes.

      IANAL, but scamming free boxes is not a copyright violation and I am hard pressed to see how a website showing pictures of their boxes is either.

      -- Never let reality temper imagination

      --
      Never let reality temper imagination
    12. Re:It does sound silly, but... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      How? He didn't sign a contract when he got the boxes?

      Sure, someone was exploiting FedEx's generosity with boxes, so they need to find some way to stop the abuse, not gang up on the poor kid with expensive lawyers and poorly thought-out overreaching laws.

      Of course, the DMCA could just read, "Big rich companies are now free to pick on anyone they want for any reason as long as Congressmen's campaigns get a piece of the action." That's how it was passed wasn't it.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    13. Re:It does sound silly, but... by FreshlyShornBalls · · Score: 1

      What DOES justify the use of the legal system, however, is that copyrights and trademarks must be protected. The next person who uses Fedex's copyrights and trademarks without permission would be able to point to this case and say, "they didn't defend it here, why are they defending it now". The more that happens, the quicker their trademark goes bye-bye.

      I'm not saying this situation isn't ridiculous. But I think blaming Fedex for the quirkiness of US copyright and trademark law is a bit ignorant.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    14. Re:It does sound silly, but... by BurningDog · · Score: 1

      You forgot about ketchup

    15. Re:It does sound silly, but... by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      For sure, there's no reason they couldn't have said "Hey wait, we've already given you like 200 boxes, you can't have any more."

      So basically, they gave him tons and tons of boxes for free, and now they're trying to take legal action against him because he didn't use them in the way that they assumed he would?

      "Oh hey you needed some paper for your printer right? Okay here you go man" (gives stack of paper)

      (receiver of paper makes paper airplanes out of every page)

      "Hey what the fuck dude I thought you needed that for your printer! I'm suing your ass! You are in violation of hundreds of international fair-usage laws regarding paper and paper-like materials!" ...

    16. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't apply to copyrights, only trademarks. You can not lose a copyright through inaction, but you can lose a trademark through inaction.

    17. Re:It does sound silly, but... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      Being married to a lawyer has taught me one main thing: Most jackass lawyers are the really dumbass ones. Not all law schools are created the same, and amazingly, it takes lots of study, but not necessarily lots of street-smarts to become a lawyer.

      This whole thing actually no longer surprises me. The true tragedy: Fedex is getting raped in legal fees by these obviously clueless attorney's representing them.

    18. Re:It does sound silly, but... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      The DMCA claim is just completely nuts, though -- it's like they're getting legal advice by reading Slashdot at -1.

      Nah - just some guy named "Darl"

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    19. Re:It does sound silly, but... by interiot · · Score: 1
      LOL. FedEx needs new lawyers. From one of their letters:
      Your earlier claims of parody appear to have no merit as Mr. Avila's screen shots that we have seen do not mention any social or other commentary regarding FedEx. In fact, his site appears to be a blatant attempt to make money because he asked viewers of the site to send him money and also included a reference to PayPal.
      Haha.
      Jose Avila: I'm broke! See how broke I am? I'm funny too! Can't you spare just a little change?

      Lawyer: See! Right there, I told you so! If you allow Mr. Avila to continue using the FedEx trademark, customers will become confused, and may think they're donating money to the REAL FedEx corporation!

    20. Re:It does sound silly, but... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      "He didn't sign a contract when he got the boxes?"

      Actually he did.
      In order to obtain those boxes he had to agree that they were for use shipping FedEx express services.
      By making furnature he breached that agreement.

      FedEx would be fully in the right if they sued him for restitution of the cost of the boxes (including delivery). Unfortunately for FedEx the lawyer is an idiot and sued over non valid issues.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    21. Re:It does sound silly, but... by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Could an argument be made that the boxes are property of FedEx? This reminds me of the dairy companies who put legal notices all over the sturdy plastic milkcrates to discourage people from taking them and using it for non-milk things (bookshelves, etc).

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    22. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya' know I just might get outraged because of the use of your analogy, except for one thing:

      When I ask for a bunch of ketchup to go with the large fries, I get 3. 3? WTF? And, the ex Mrs. Coward worked for the aforementioned garbage-food place, and, yes, it is their policy.

      So, Mr. holier-than-thou-with-an-(actually-crappy)-analogy , thanks for changing my opinion about this guy from completely indifferent to supportive enough to bad mouth FedEx.

    23. Re:It does sound silly, but... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      How? He didn't sign a contract when he got the boxes?

      You should be aware that there are many legal causes of action that do not require an enforcable contract. Unjust enrichment is one.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    24. Re:It does sound silly, but... by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      FedEx could very easily solve the free box problem by charging a small fee for each box, but then deducting the amount from your bill when you ship them. That way legitimate customers are basically getting the boxes free while preventing leeches from using FedEx as a free supply of moving boxes.

    25. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      this is an abuse of the legal system,.. however, there really is no legal way FedEx can go after this guy. He is taking advantage of FedEx freely distributing boxes in order to promote its service. In a business, you can really appreciate not having to pay up front for a package and the convenience this represents.

      So, while this is a dirty trick, I think in this case it is warranted to fight fire with fire. Other than charging for packages up front, FedEx has no other recourse. And who would benefit from that?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    26. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Castar · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there.

      Burger King and FedEx made a business decision when they allowed people to take as many ketchup packets or boxes as they liked. Whoever made the decision thought that the loss of profit from ketchup or box freeloaders was worth the good will and lack of enforcement cost. If it turns out that's not true, then they have a recourse: change the policy; either for everyone or just for those people abusing it.

      If you want to put a big box of ketchup packets out so that you don't have to pay someone to hand it to your customers every time they ask, you have to accept the tradeoffs.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    27. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Washizu · · Score: 1

      "So I can see why FedEx would take umbrage at his using the boxes they're paying for to make furniture, and then turning around and showing everyone in the world how what a bunch of suckers FedEx is for giving boxes away for free."

      Maybe FedEx could, I don't know, stop giving him boxes?

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    28. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Actually he did.
      In order to obtain those boxes he had to agree that they were for use shipping FedEx express services.


      Really? Can you show proof of that? FedEx couldn't when Jose's Lawyer asked them for proof...

    29. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it has to be illegal use of a trademark, which this isn't. By any stretch of the imagination. FedEx isn't doing this because they have to, they are doing it because they want to.

    30. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      It's pretty clear the whole thing keeps going because some bored FedEx lawyer is having a little fun with this guy.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    31. Re:It does sound silly, but... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Don't anthropomorphise information (or shipping boxes). It hates it when you do that.

      (With apologies to the owner of the sig I stole that from)

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:It does sound silly, but... by Wescotte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jose Avila: I'm broke! See how broke I am? I'm funny too! Can't you spare just a little change?

      Lawyer: See! Right there, I told you so! If you allow Mr. Avila to continue using the FedEx trademark, customers will become confused, and may think they're donating money to the REAL FedEx corporation!


      So, does that mean when he can't pay the legal fees to defend himself he will be forced to sell his furniture and get sued again?!?!

    33. Re:It does sound silly, but... by stienman · · Score: 1

      Read the website.

      He indicates that he does a lot of shipping and ordered the boxes when he moved in. It wasn't until after he saw a friend of his using fedex boxes as furniture that he contemplated also using them as furniture. At one point he quips that whenever he needs another box he'd just take it out of his furniture (though I doubt he does).

      Whether this is all true or not, I don't know, but that is his claim.

      I'm certian he ordered more boxes primarily for furniture use after he got started, though.

      -Adam

    34. Re:It does sound silly, but... by reidbold · · Score: 1

      a) Read the response to the c & d. He did not violate any agreements. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/archives/CIS%20letter .pdf
      b) No one has sued anyone here, try RTFA.

      --
      -Reid
    35. Re:It does sound silly, but... by wintermute740 · · Score: 1

      "I think fellow used fedex.com to order a whole lot of boxes with no intention of using them to actually ship stuff in. It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there."

      Should FedEx stop giving him boxes? Obviously. But does the DMCA apply? I don't really see how. It certainly wouldn't apply to your Burger King guy, even if he took pictures of said ketchup packets being used on McDonalds' fries and placed them on the web.

    36. Re:It does sound silly, but... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then the lawyers start getting bored and might sue someone inside the company just for something to do.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    37. Re:It does sound silly, but... by zoomzit · · Score: 1

      If movies have taught me anything, it's that FedEx should hire this fellow to train their pilots how to make survival gear out of FedEx boxes just in case they are stranded on an unmarked deserted island for years and years. WILSON!!!!

    38. Re:It does sound silly, but... by sonixtwo · · Score: 1

      Burker King (or any other food chain) wouldn't file a lawsuit againt you for using those ketchup packets for non-fries use. They could easily say no when you ask for more (Burger King and FedEx)

    39. Re:It does sound silly, but... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but DMCA?

      And it's not just using the boxes without paying that would bug FedEx. The website associates the boxes with being ghetto. So there's a negative impact to their image (from a corporate lawyer's point of view, anyway).

      But DMCA?

      Just because the pictures are on a website rather than printed?

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    40. Re:It does sound silly, but... by LarsG · · Score: 1

      According to Granick's reply to FedEx, there was no binding contract requiring that the boxes be used for shipping.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    41. Re:It does sound silly, but... by BillAtHRST · · Score: 1

      A long time ago I worked with a guy who made furniture for his office out of stacks of 11x17 printouts. He actually made a pretty fair imitation of a couch, but it wasn't very comfortable...

    42. Re:It does sound silly, but... by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      You think... nowhere in any of the articles does it say he ordered new boxes for the purpose of making furniture. On the site he says he and his friends made the furniture after his friends had moved to Seattle and he moved to New Mexico. So they had boxes from the move [some at least]. And nowhere does it say he thinks FedEx are suckers for giving him free boxes.

      I think... its just FedEx going overboard protecting their trademark as they are required to do to keep it current. It seems they were wrong to use the DMCA as a tool and it displays a lack of humour on their part but I dont think thay are too concerned that there will be a run on free shipping boxes for nefarious furniture related purposes. Personally i would have put the logoed side inwards. A whole room of that stuff would get real tired, real quick.

    43. Re:It does sound silly, but... by daspriest · · Score: 0
      I think it is quite a bit different. For starters, furniture is and has been for a long time an art form, many of the greatest artists have done similar things. I think FedEx is pretty stupid for not seeing this for what it is, a great opportunity for some positive PR, "hey, look how strong and durable our boxes are!!" And have instead turned this into negative PR.

      This is far from using Burger King ketchup packets at home after taking a large quantity without ordering anything else from them, for example: FedEx Furniture, being creative and making something from the boxes, essentially art; Burger King Ketchup, ripping off the local burger king because you are too cheap to purchase ketchup at the local market.

      I for one have been appaled by FedEx's shipping standards, I have had many a box arrive at the distro center in town, and not be actually delivered for 3 or 4 days after it arrives in town. I use UPS now whenever possible, because at least they have always delivered within a day that it arrives at the distribution center in town.

    44. Re:It does sound silly, but... by lag10 · · Score: 1

      I think fellow used fedex.com to order a whole lot of boxes with no intention of using them to actually ship stuff in. It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there. So I can see why FedEx would take umbrage at his using the boxes they're paying for to make furniture, and then turning around and showing everyone in the world how what a bunch of suckers FedEx is for giving boxes away for free.

      Quite frankly, I think that hoarding ketchup packets from Burger King is a justified thing to do. When the register at BK breaks down, you don't want to imagine what it's like in the store while the cashier tries to place the orders. One time, the cashier was stupid enough to demand $5 from me when my total was $18 (including tax). The thing is, I gave him a $20 bill. Until these corporations make my buying experience better, I'll continue hoarding ketchup packets. Plus, that ketchup packet mountain in my fridge is starting to look like a real mountain. More of a reason to continue!

    45. Re:It does sound silly, but... by tanner_andrews · · Score: 1
      Could an argument be made that the boxes are property of FedEx? This reminds me of the dairy companies who put legal notices all over the sturdy plastic milkcrates

      Two differences, though they may be so minor that you'll consider me to be quibbling.

      First, those milk crates really are the property of the dairies. They don't alien them; they use them only for the delivery of their product, and that only to companies who we will presume to have agreed to return the empties. Compare fed ex, who alien the boxes; fed ex does not retain a possessory interest in those shipping boxes.

      Second, the dairies have bought legislation to make it a crime to even possess those milk crates. In Florida, it's Fla. Stat. 506.509; violation is punishable by up to a year in jail. Compare fed ex, where possession of the shipping boxes is not considered a crime.

      --
      Tilt at windmills. Occasionally one will fall over out of sheer surprise.
    46. Re:It does sound silly, but... by tcampb01 · · Score: 1

      Who's to say he WONT someday dismantle his furniture and use those boxes to ship something?

      I've got a pile of FedEx shipping supplies too, but mine are just sitting on a shelf waiting until I need to ship something. I think this guy is pretty clever (not to mention earth-friendly) by coming up with more than just 1 use for the boxes before they're sent to a landfill.

  7. "You just can't make this stuff up." by MattGWU · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh, sure you can!

    --
    "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    1. Re:"You just can't make this stuff up." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and it's not like the slashdot editors would care if you did!

    2. Re:"You just can't make this stuff up." by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      Did you hear about that time in the 90s when Jeff Bezos totally killed a man and UPS'd his dead body to a library in Tijuana? Apparently somebody caught the whole thing on one of Amazon's digital cameras and a few years later the shit was about to come down. That's when Bezos got congress to write provisions in the DMCA, barring the use of copyrighted digital images as courtroom evidence. After that the criminal case was dismissed for lack of evidence and the Tijuana public library was forced to settle for only 12 million pesos.

  8. Strength of the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This case seems about as strong as his furniture: their evidence being as flimsy as his creations...

    Woo, got those out of the way...

    1. Re:Strength of the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot:

            the legal team claimed it was open-and-shut.

            they have him boxed in.

            they expect him to fold quickly.

  9. Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's only a matter of time before FedEx starts going after the homeless that live in FedEx boxes...

    1. Re:Only a matter of time by borawjm · · Score: 1

      It's only a matter of time before FedEx starts going after the homeless that live in FedEx boxes

      Those must be the upperclass homeless people you speak of

    2. Re:Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can we just ship them out of town? Overnight?

  10. Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    As much as I see complaints about companies like this, I rarely see anyone suggesting anything to help remedy the situation... Why don't we boycott FedEx? Pick UPS or some other delivery service instead!

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    1. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      I think that FedEx won't get away with this - the guy has Stanford law profs defending him pro bono.

    2. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by matth · · Score: 1

      I already boycott fedex.. they have aweful develiery.. I use UPS whenever possible.

    3. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. I have had exactly the opposite experience. I cringe when I have to order something and the shop uses UPS over FedEx.

    4. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      That's strange. I find it's just the opposite. FedEx has always come through for me, while UPS almost always destroys my stuff, regardless of how it's packed (ever seen a cardboard box fall 5 storeys?). Last one that came in had two forklift holes in it. Four, I guess, counting the exit wounds.

    5. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we boycott FedEx?

      Because I like my shipments to be delivered on-time, unbroken, and in one piece. That's something that UPS hasn't quite mastered yet.

    6. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by hamfactorial · · Score: 1

      I find the opposite as well. I work in a shipping warehouse (where I'm currently reading Slashdot, hoho!) and I deal with Fedex DHL and UPS on a regular basis. Fedex consistently delivers packages without damage, and because of the fragile nature of most of our inventory, we ship with them. UPS packages frequently arrive dirty hole-punched, with damaged goods inside. I had a friend work for UPS and the loading workers actually get a kick out of seeing how badly they can beat the boxes up without damage.

      --
      Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future? Holy shit!
    7. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by Desert+Raven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and FedEx really pissed off Jose's lawyer too. They demanded that she take down her comments at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

      There are dumber things to do than to tell a university lawyer that they can't print their opinions. But offhand, I can't think of any. And even better yet, she's not just some staff lawyer, she's the Executive Director for the Center for Internet and Society Cyberlaw Clinic.

    8. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Why don't we boycott FedEx? Pick UPS or some other delivery service instead!

      Because "big brown" is a big brown turd.

      Me, I use USPS whenever possible, FedEx second, and I'll walk my package there myself before I use UPS.



    9. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by cellurl · · Score: 1

      I forsee a whole fall-line of coffeetables!
      (BROWN, YELLOW, WHITE)

    10. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by ces · · Score: 1

      That's strange. I find it's just the opposite. FedEx has always come through for me, while UPS almost always destroys my stuff, regardless of how it's packed (ever seen a cardboard box fall 5 storeys?). Last one that came in had two forklift holes in it. Four, I guess, counting the exit wounds.

      I have has a similar experience. Roughly 7 years ago I worked in shipping and recieving for a VAR. Things shipped via FexEx and the Postal Service arrived on-time and intact. UPS regularly misplaced or mangled shipments from our vendors or to our customers. We tried to avoid them whenever possible but some vendors and customers insisted on using UPS also UPS Ground was the cheapest way to ship in-state by enough to make up for the hassle of using them.

      The worst thing I ever saw there was the pallet of disk drives that had both been dropped and been stuck with a forklift blade. Also any number of boxes that were crushed and had tire marks on them.

      A number of years later when working in the IS department of a midsize company I got to witness UPS' incompetience again as orders for things like servers, switches, routers, laptops, and monitors would arrive damaged. The same sorts of things again: torn open boxes, crush/dropping damage, tire marks, forklift blade punctures, etc. UPS had to replace a lot of very expensive equipment on their dime due to shipping damage.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    11. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. by matth · · Score: 1

      Here's my experience:

      UPS always delivers on time regarless of if it is to work or home.

      FedEx on the other hand, routinely delivers to the wrong hub here so packages are a day or two late as they have to be shuffled around.

      I've had more then one package on which the delivery date online said "today" and it came and went, and I called FexEx... one time the package was delivered to the wrong hub in another city and had to be moved. The other the driver of the truck (which was loaded last night) didn't show up so the packages were not going to be delievered.
      Additionally FedEx does not deliver on Saturdays, but UPS does.. a very large plus for residential deliveries.

  11. Back in college... by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 3, Funny

    They put out these stupid phone directories. No one wanted them. They were the biggest waste of money, and they ended up sitting outside on huge stacks for people to grab. One night, we took a whole bunch of them, added some duct tape, and we had a couch for our dorm room. The only problem was that the covers were glossy and we would also slide off the couch.

  12. Slashdotted already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless the site was already taken down, that's the fastest one I've seen in a while.

  13. Death knell by kevin_conaway · · Score: 1

    Fedex just earned itself a lifetime of wrath (probably no lost business though) from Slashdotters by invoking the four-letter word.

    The four letter word aside, is he legally allowed to use their logo in that manner?

    1. Re:Death knell by Tuffsnake · · Score: 0

      Yes and it doesn't even matter if their argument is valid b/c by using that 4 letter word FedEx got all of the "angry /.ers" to take the poor guys site down for them....

    2. Re:Death knell by hanshotfirst · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Problem solved with a can of spray paint or cheap upholstery.

      I don't see how DMCA applies, since there was no digital rights management hardware or software installed on the boxes he received (unless you count the chemical bonding of the paint to paper), and he did nothing to circumvent that (non-existent) copy protection.

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
  14. Allowances for artistic expression? by Tepshen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL but after looking at the website it strikes me that on this scale the effort and pictures can almost be considered artistic. this guy did some very creative stuff with those boxes and I'm pretty impressed with the results. It seems pretty draconian even for DMCA to stifle this kind of work.

    1. Re:Allowances for artistic expression? by dubbreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the furniture creator's blog:
      "Over two weeks ago, FedEx improperly used the DMCA notice and take-down provisions to get the website at www.fedexfurniture.com taken offline. The company claimed trademark infringement and conversion, neither of which allow it to take advantage of the powerful remedy provided under the DMCA."... http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/"

      His blog is available at http://furniture.weblogswork.com/

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Allowances for artistic expression? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      IANAL but after looking at the website it strikes me that on this scale the effort and pictures can almost be considered artistic.

      Oddly enough, the first thing I thought of on viewing his site was that it is a modern take on the Andy Warhol Campbell's Soup Can.

    3. Re:Allowances for artistic expression? by StupidHelpDeskGuy · · Score: 1

      Yep,

      Seems they would be better off hiring this guy. I'm thinking about a garage couch made of empty beer cases, just like when I was in college.

    4. Re:Allowances for artistic expression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I looked at the images and thought "yeah, in an artsy sort of way it looks pretty good..." So does this mean that steel drums used for oil cannout be pounded into music instruments anymore (using it for a purpose other than what the corporate rulers intended)? I know milk bottle crates find other uses (the milk people don't like it though). I suppose the jam manufactures won't want you using their glass jars for storage either. I know that at the department store, when stuff wasn't on sale, they would at least tell you that it's free staple, bag and reciept day (with every purchase). Now I suppose using plastic store bags to put garbage in is wrong,wrong,wrong!!! You must dispose of the fed-ex boxes after use, and dare not think about using them for any other purpose. According to fed-ex: "Reduce, Recycle, Reuse? FSCK THAT!" What do I think about Fed-Ex going after this guy: First: Why are you going after this guy again? Second, you are a bunch of idiots for going after this guy. Third, my business will go to UPS after this because you people have lost your minds! What if I *LIKE* recycling boxes? What if I *LIKE* giving them to the local kindergarden so that they can fingerpaint them and make pretend houses out of them? I can see the lawyer coming out with this one, but the CXO agreeing to it? Exactly how badly do you *NOT* want my business again?

  15. Full mirror here by winkydink · · Score: 5, Informative

    Weird... very weird

    Mirror.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Full mirror here by khazad · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a classic story. The crusader is attacked by evil copyright bad-guys. He refuses to submit and puts his website back online. In a cruel twist, his site is ultimately annihilated by those who support him.

    2. Re:Full mirror here by bizitch · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if he can make a new webserver out of FedEx boxes ;)

      --
      ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    3. Re:Full mirror here by dotpavan · · Score: 1

      dude, clever, very clever..

      everytime there is some article, you just drop in a comment like "ah!" or "weird!" or something like that, drop in the mirror link and get away by getting modded 5 for being informative!!

      and the best part? you own the mirror site! why not tell the slashdotters in a story about this site of yours and do away with this kind of publicity??

    4. Re:Full mirror here by cl0secall · · Score: 1

      and then having completed that, he can make a Beowulf cluster of them.

      [homer]mmm... boxes...[/homer]

      --
      Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
    5. Re:Full mirror here by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Usually it's more like a sentence of comment, but, almost all of my 1000+ comments have been succinct.

      I make no effort to hide the fact that I own Network Mirror. I also make effort to hide the fact that it's still a money pit.

      Obviously, people with mod points feel that posting a link to a mirror when a site is slashdotted is a good thing. Otherwise, I'd get nodded down, not up.

      Your point again is?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  16. A little bit excessive... by necro2607 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aren't there laws about making absolutely unreasonable legal threats towards someone? ...

    This is wayyy over the line!

    Well, guess I won't be shipping any packages with FedEx any time soon. Knowing that "that could be me" is enough for me to boycott the company and encourage others to do so as well...

    1. Re:A little bit excessive... by bani · · Score: 1

      Aren't there laws about making absolutely unreasonable legal threats towards someone?

      No.

      Maybe there should be, but there isn't any.

    2. Re:A little bit excessive... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Aren't there laws about making absolutely unreasonable legal threats towards someone? ...

      Yes. It can fall under extortion and harrasment, among others.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:A little bit excessive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's called barratry, and I think you can sue over it.

    4. Re:A little bit excessive... by stienman · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they are very narrow (probably require real damages to have occured due to the threat) and I imagine that the lawyers drafting the notice were very careful to exploit any loopholes so they wouldn't fall under those laws while still being as aggressive as they could be.

      -Adam

    5. Re:A little bit excessive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't there laws about making absolutely unreasonable legal threats towards someone?

      No, because there's a law against passing laws banning unreasonable usage of other laws.

    6. Re:A little bit excessive... by hacker · · Score: 1
      No.

      Maybe there should be, but there isn't any.

      Except that there are.

      "barratry is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass."

  17. Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because some lawyer writes you a letter doesn't mean you have to do anything asked. If that were the case, there would be pure anarchy.

    A judgement, which generally comes after a hearing, is another matter.

    There's no way they'd win any claim of damages, period. They might be able to persuade a network provider to remove a site, but that's only because the customer usually has signed a contract with the provider that waives any right to damages resulting from a site being taken down, not because lawyers get to make law merely by writing letters to people.

    If he's violating copyright and trademark law, then why can't Ford sue me for driving a Ford with Ford trademarks all over it? If I put a picture of my Ford on the the web, can they take down my site?

    Precisely how is this different?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was tried by SCO, since they were sueing their own customers for using their IP. :P

    2. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you put up a web site called myford.com with a copy of the Ford logo on every page, then yes, they probably could sue you for trademark infringement. If he had simply named the site shippingcompanyfurniture.com, then FedEx should have no legal recourse. But of course he just had to use the trademarked "FedEx" in the name, and put a copy of the FedEx logo on every page.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I put a picture of my Ford on the the web, can they take down my site? RedHat does.

    4. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If I put a picture of my Ford on the the web, can they take down my site?

      VW tried it!

    5. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by BFaucet · · Score: 2, Informative

      One thing you miss in your post is the cost associated with defending yourself against a giant company. Sure if you win you'll probably get your costs back, but high payed lawyers such as FedEx could afford would probably be able to keep a case going for a few years... Reguardless of how ridiculous the accusations.

      --
      -Derick
    6. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Just because some lawyer writes you a letter doesn't mean you have to do anything asked. If that were the case, there would be pure anarchy.

      Not anarchy, monarchy.

      The analysis is pretty straightforward really. Everyone sends out to as many people as possible the following letter:
      Cease and desist sending out cease and desist orders or any other legal letters.

      Last one standing wins.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is this different. Well, you bought your ford, it is your car, and you are not intending to make a PROFIT off of the use of their name. This guy is a professional designer that used a widely known trademarked name in his url and has misrepresented resources from said company. Lets see, I'm going to rob you, kick you while your down, and then post it on the web in hopes of gaining publicity for my business....hmm. Moron

    8. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "One thing you miss in your post is the cost associated with defending yourself against a giant company."

      If you sue me, I'm entitled to a hearing. No amount of money can stop that hearing from being set on a court docket, and no company has the power to make the cost of that hearing any higher that the cost established for any other hearing in that venue.

      You cannot put enough pressure on me to waive my right to a hearing. My attorney already works for me for a reasonable hourly rate.

      Now the cost of litigation tends to be higher if you're not actually innocent or completely in the right. Most cases that drag out very expensively have greedy defendants or defendants who aren't exactly 100% in the right. That's different.

      I'm reading a bit more into this FedEx box story. Turns out the guy is using fresh boxes taken for the purpose of building his furniture, and NOT using boxes that were sent to him via FedEx (presumably with some contents.) That's different. That's the difference between the case getting laughed off the docket at the first meeting with the bench, and the case having some merit that would involve the defendant being a little unreasonable by not complying with a cease and desist order.

      If you're not in the right, or if you're being greedy, then yeah, your legal problems might be a lot more expensive than they would be otherwise.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? by sourcery · · Score: 1
      If you put up a web site called myford.com with a copy of the Ford logo on every page, then yes, they probably could sue you for trademark infringement.

      You can sue anyone for anything at any time. Winning the suit is another matter. In the case at hand, no suit for trademark infringement will succeed unless the defendent is using the trademark in a commercial activity--and not necessarily even then. The commercial activity has to be deemed by the court to be likely to lead to consumer confusion. For example, the confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by the plaintiff.

      --
      Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
  18. It's all about shutting down the site. by doublem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the real deal. FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx.

    The lawsuit is probably not expected to succeed, but to pressure the web site owner into closing up shop. If he doesn't have the cash for proper furniture, then he won't have the cash for lawyers.

    For FedEx, "winning" consists of getting the site of the Internet. The legal battle is a means to an end.

    Of course the result of all this is I'll be pressuring our shipping department to use UPS instead.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Kelson · · Score: 5, Funny

      And, by making sure he gets Slashdotted, they've already succeeded!

    2. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Here's the real deal. FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx. Duh. So why not charge people the actual cost of the boxes, then subtract it off the shipping fees?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by hotspotbloc · · Score: 1
      Here's the real deal. FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx.

      So FedEx should pay the guy to build a cottage out of UPS boxes.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    4. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess FedEx is doing this for the customers. Some people order extra boxes in case they need them in the future. Since the boxes are free, they don't have to worry about using every single box they order.

    5. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Here's the real deal. FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx. Then perhaps they should stop giving them away for free to anybody who asks for them.

    6. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So really, FedEx is using tax dollars and government departments to do something they should be handling on their own.

      hmmm...

    7. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      The main problem with that, of course, is that it's illegal to sue somebody to shut them up.
      It's called a SLAPP lawsuit. A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
      Basically, using the courts to shut people up, intimidate them or harass them, without needing to win, or suing somebody for revenge after they divulged something you didn't want divulged, is a SLAPP.
      There are penalties for SLAPP lawsuits.
      This is almost certainly one. What they would be suing for if they were serious, is the use of the URL and trade name for FEDEXFURNITURE dot com.
      Especially since the guy colored FedEx the red and blue colors like the FedEx logo.
      Basically he could have said Shipping Container furniture all he wanted, but by naming his site fedexfurniture.com he is using their name.
      However, if FedEx hasn't trademarked that name for use in the furniture industry, I'd say they're SOL.
      Well, except that he is stealing his materials from their company.

    8. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by doublem · · Score: 1

      At which point, UPS will eat FedEx's lunch, as both carriers provide free boxes. People will have to take the cost of packing materials into account in ways they otherwise wouldn't, and UPS will come out ahead.

      The guy who built the box furniture was abusing FexEx's policies, and now FedEx is struggling to find an appropriate response to a situation that could easily cost millions.

      Think about it. 2,000 twenty somethings each order enough free boxes to outfit a one bedroom or a small studio in bed frame, chairs and desks. How much will all those boxes cost in raw materials alone???

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    9. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Well, now that this is *all over the news* online, looks like FedEx has kind of shot themselves in the foot... :-D

    10. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      Two reasons:

      1) It's too complicated
      2) Free boxes act as an incentive to use FedEx.

      I'm sure that as long as there aren't any gross abuses of the free boxes, FedEx makes money of this deal. I think making furniture out of the boxes constitutes gross abuse, so FedEx is right to be upset. I'm not convinced their current approach to this problem is the most effective.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    11. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap. Abusing their policies? Did he sign a contract to get these boxes? Probably not. They give them out for free expecting that people will use them for shipping, but nothing forces people to use them that way.

      My only response to this is, "Relax!" This is something fun. Do you think people are really going to go to the effort of order thousands of boxes just to build some ghetto furniture? Nobody is going to seriously do it. It's all for fun!

      Anybody that has a problem with this must have had their senses of humor and fun surgically removed.

    12. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      Here's the real deal. FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx.

      why not? free advertising man! every time someone comes over to this dude's place, they'll be bombarded with the the logo, so when it comes time for them to ship something, their subconcious will just be drawn to FedEx before all others.

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    13. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by doublem · · Score: 1

      Do you think people are really going to go to the effort of order thousands of boxes just to build some ghetto furniture?

      I don't know, but clearly FexEx is afraid of just such a thing happening.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    14. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      So you sue him for the cost of boxes, and possibly trademark infringement.
      The DMCA bit is still absurd.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    15. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      I can understand that they don't like people to use the free boxes for other things than shipping, but that is their problem. Noone is obligated to make their "give away free boxes to people ship more" marketing idea work. Just like I can go to a store and buy only the underpriced loss-leaders. The store may lose money on it, but that is not my problem untill they get a law against buying stuff that is too cheap.

    16. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by reidbold · · Score: 1
      Judging by the response to the C&D, he was abiding by Fedex's policies.


      Think about it. 2,000 twenty somethings each order enough free boxes to outfit a one bedroom or a small studio in bed frame, chairs and desks. How much will all those boxes cost in raw materials alone???

      Nothing if Fedex has any smarts at all, because they just shouldn't send them out.
      --
      -Reid
    17. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      I guess that people will understand themselves that if you can build furniture out of FedEx boxes, you can do so with UPS boxes too.

    18. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the result of all this is I'll be pressuring our shipping department to use UPS instead.

      I'm sure FedEx read your post and is now shaking in their boots...

    19. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by doublem · · Score: 1

      Good luck sorting out those costly wastes form all of the legitimate requests for boxes.

      Easy to say, hell of a problem to actually do.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    20. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      You're right. As soon as I get home I know that I personally was planning on destroying all my furniture with an axe to replace it with cardboard boxes.

      By the way, if you read the article you'd see he's being represented by lawyers at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. He got free furniture AND free legal services. He seems really good at getting things for free.

    21. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by reidbold · · Score: 1

      Don't need to wish me luck, it's not my problem.
      Awwwwwwww poor multinational corporation!

      --
      -Reid
    22. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but once you throw the FSF and EFF lawyers into the mix (not to mention the hottie chick lawyer mentioned over at wired), then you get a lot more sticky legal goodness in every bite! These people will fight the good fight, because that's what they do (and they are underwritten more than Fed-Ex, there is no end to the money for them). Fed-Ex marketing will suddenly see Fed-Ex closely associated with Fed-Up!, and Fscked-Up, and Ex-Fed-Ex. Fed-Ex opened up a legal box that they can't tape shut again. Once it hits /. somewhere between 2.5 and 80 million people will see it. Wired gets it's share too. This can in no way be good for business.

    23. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by NitroWolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I'll stop using FedEx as well...

      However, instead of UPS, which charges and arm and a leg to ship, try using DHL (Formerly known as Airborne Express) - they are usually at least a day or two faster than UPS and 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

      Plus they are a cool yellow and red, not poop brown.

    24. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Not really... By making it onto slashdot (as could almost have been predicted), they've made sure that pretty much the entire group of people who would ever want to make furniture out of FedEx boxes has seen it!

    25. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      You're missing the point. FedEx's business model is fundamentally flawed, e.g. their competitors could conceivably put them out of business just by ordering millions of "free" boxes and never using them. But instead of fixed their flawed business model, instead they sic their lawyers on anybody with the audacity to point out a flaw in their business model. This is exactly the same kind of behavior the RIAA and MPAA are engaging in, which is what is pissing everybody off.

      Of course, it also annoys me that grocery stores can't charge you the dime it costs them for each paper bag they use to bag your groceries, thereby encouraging people to recycle or even (gasp!) bring reusable canvas bags to the store with them. The principles of economics cannot be used to effectively to ensure the most efficient use of resources as long as companies continue to conspire to hide the real costs from us. (Granted, many items probably cost more to track than you could get back in revenue by tracking them.) Likewise, the internet cannot function properly until people actually have to pay for it relative to number of bits they actually transfer, since there will always be idiots who take "unlimited service" literally... Case in point: Spam would vanish overnight if spammers had to pay the actual costs of the bandwidth and disk space required to deliver the millions of messages they send out.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    26. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Well, except that he is stealing his materials from their company."

      The site is down, so I can't read it.

      How did he get there material? did he break in and take it? is it something that was for sale and he snuck it out the door? That would probablt be stealing.

      Did he take something that was Fedex was giving away? then no, he wasn't stealing. It also would be stealing if he was using discareded boxes?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by bastardoperator · · Score: 1

      In canada we do have one that charges that for cheap ass plastic bags and paper too.

    28. Re:It's all about shutting down the site. by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Of course, the media attention they get _now_ is even better. There's no such thing as bad publicity...

  19. domains by skeletor935 · · Score: 0

    I doubt 2/3 of the world knows that the internet committee(don't care which one) actually differentiates betewen (com, net, org)

  20. slashdotted by BobVila · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is the server made out of fedex boxes.

    1. Re:slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the editors are just too fucking stupid to post a Coral-cached link to the sites. Even though it's been requested by readers and site owners alike hundreds of times over the years.

    2. Re:slashdotted by ooby · · Score: 1

      Even though he put his content back on the site after speaking with his lawyer, we've taken it down for him.

    3. Re:slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not requested by all site owners. Pageview counts are important for commercial sites.

    4. Re:slashdotted by og_sh0x · · Score: 1

      Quit bitching and use Mirrordot. How many times must you be told? You're welcome.

    5. Re:slashdotted by codergeek42 · · Score: 1

      Was that a question.

    6. Re:slashdotted by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Pageviews are useless if the webserver is burning.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  21. Its common by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wired is running an article about a guy with no money making furniture out of FedEx boxes. If that weren't strange enough, FedEx is going after him, legally citing the DMCA. Yes, the DMCA.

    Its common for homeless people or people without money to commit stupid crimes in order to get locked up for a while in order to get a free place to stay and food. This guy must have been clever to be able to first get temporary free furniture and then a temporary free place to stay and free food.

    Very clever.

    1. Re:Its common by hobbesx · · Score: 1

      Even more clever: Getting a domain and site hosted while living between dumpsters on 1st & Western.

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    2. Re:Its common by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      "Its common for homeless people or people without money to commit stupid crimes in order to get locked up for a while in order to get a free place to stay and food."

      don't blaim the poor for trying to get food and board. Blaim lawmakers for imposing so many inane and trivial laws that we would actually imprison people for such petty offenses.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    3. Re:Its common by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      don't blaim the poor for trying to get food and board

      Yeah. because it's not like the homeless don't have access to free food in any reasonably sized municipality where homelessness is commonplace.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:Its common by DM9290 · · Score: 1


      you are directing your rebuttal at the wrong post son. It was not *I* who claimed that homeless people were getting arrested on purpose simply to get free food and board.

      If there is (as you dubiously claim) free food and board for all homeless people (without needing to be arrested), then clearly this is evidence that homeless people are being imprisoned for reasons other than free food and board.

      reasons such as I previously mentioned.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  22. they'll probably just shut down the site... by paulsgre · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and, erm, send him on his way.

    1. Re:they'll probably just shut down the site... by wgray8231 · · Score: 1

      ... and if he does go to jail, will it be in a FedEx truck? And will they make him sleep on an uncomfortable FedEx box bed?

      That would be justice!

  23. the DMCA by xiaomonkey · · Score: 1

    I don't know if anybody has said it before but with all that it's empowered various companies to do the DMCA is clearly the:

    worst...technology-law...ever....

  24. He's a geek by digitalvengeance · · Score: 5, Funny

    My favorite part of the site, the footer:

    If any shipping corporations have problems with our site please feel free to forward requests to /dev/null. By emailing us any questions or comments you give fedexfurniture.com the right to post any such message, and or replies on our site.

    --
    How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
    1. Re:He's a geek by Penguin · · Score: 1

      .. that, and the Tux in the lamp :-)

      --
      - Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
    2. Re:He's a geek by coastin · · Score: 1

      I'll have to take your word for it since the /.ing is still in progress.

      --
      I lost my sig...
    3. Re:He's a geek by Dare+nMc · · Score: 5, Funny

      and definitive proof from the site.

      can handle his 5-foot-6-inch, 165-pound frame, even when he jumps up and down on it (an experiment he tried in response to an e-mail asking if the bed could support two people).

    4. Re:He's a geek by Q-Branch · · Score: 1
      My favorite part:

      NOTE: I do not reccomend fedex furniture if you are looking to impress a date.
    5. Re:He's a geek by east+coast · · Score: 1

      .. that, and the Tux in the lamp :-)

      Man, that's just another trend. It's like the "greenday" punks, they've never heard of Black Flag and they think they're the shit for having colored hair...

      Kids are buying crap from sites like jinxhackware and thinkgeek faster than it can be produced. do you think it's because it's geek or because it's a trend? Linux is the new counterculture, it doesn't mean these people are into it.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  25. I bet wired.com can handle the traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  26. Because this is America, the land of the free to sue anyone for any damn thing you want and home of the bravely take the DMCA as far as it can possibly go...

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  27. You have to love their claim by Evets · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You have to love their claim that his building furniture with fedex boexes violates the terms of use at fedex.com.

    "fedex.com is provided solely for the use of current and potential FedEx customers to interact with FedEx and may not be used by any other person or entity, or for any other purpose."

    1. Re:You have to love their claim by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      If you wanna get THAT stupid, I think getting the boxes in the first place made him a fedex customer.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:You have to love their claim by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      This is the SCO logic approach: "The boxes have our name on them, same as fedex.com, so we own them, what's in them, pictures of them, the house that they are in, the street that the house is on, the air that touches them, the whole world, everything. Pay up.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    3. Re:You have to love their claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those CueCat people provided free barcode scanners for a particular purpose too. Credit Card companies used to send free, activated credit cards, and then start billing you for a yearly service fee even if you didn't use them (that was struck down by courts and a Federal Law.) The problem is, if you give something away for free, you can have a hard time asserting some restriction on the other person because of it.

      Now, FedEx may have a leg to stand on because this guy has to physically go and get the boxes, they are not something that FedEx is shoving at him. A leg to stand on in claiming he is stealing the boxes, that is, not that his web site or anything else violates the DMCA.

      FedEx ought to just put up a sign saying "please pay us $1 per box if you do not plan to use the box for FedEx services". The honor system would work well enough in this case.

  28. Take down! by Fr05t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fedex gave him warning, then posted a link to his site in a ./ article.

  29. FedEx by Nonillion · · Score: 0

    Dude, pass the bong, let me try that serious green.

    DMCA?????? You have to be fsking kidding me, maybe it's litigation on this level that will do away with the DCMA. But realistically, satan will be wearing long johns before this happens.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  30. Free Beer by howlin_walleye · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was in college my roommate and I made a couch out of cases of empty (beer) returnables. Can I sue somebody to get free beer?

    1. Re:Free Beer by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Can I sue somebody to get free beer?

      Only if you can get a mouse in the bottle.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:Free Beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because presumably someone had already paid for the beer that was in the returnables.

  31. Just another step on the road to hell... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I tell ya, we are rapidly approaching a time when anyone with money and power can attack anyone else, for any reason, under the guise of some byzantine law that no one understands, or agrees with, even the people who passed it.

    In many countries like Brazil, it's completely impossible to run a business and abide by the labyrinthe of complicated and conflicting laws. Is this the kind of country we want in the U.S.?

    Now, it's possible that FedEx has a case that this guy is abusing their trademark with the appropriately colored "Fed Ex" text on his site, but I can't see how he is harming them and the fact that they would... and could... cite the DMCA is just frightening. Is there no sense of perspective among these huge companies? All the guy is saying is that they make good boxes, but now they will generate not a small amount of bad will.

    Now if the guy was selling the furniture, I also think they'd have a case. As it is, maybe he'll have to spray paint or otherwise obscure the company's logo. I thought these guys paid big bucks to plaster their names on anything they could like billboards, TV commercials, stadiums, people's foreheads...

    I guess Mattel missed out by not using the DMCA when they pounded the crap out of that harmless little Barbie site several years ago. I guess the lawyers need someone to beat up or they start getting cranky.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    1. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the perhaps we should go back to the wild wild west of justice

      party A makes legal threats to party B
      party B waits in bushes on a dark night and kills party A

      end of problem
      it really is that simple

    2. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I guess the lawyers need someone to beat up or they lose their jobs"

      More accurate :)

    3. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just repeating, but all this was is a cease and desist letter, there are no copyrights here, the DMCA is not applicable. The lawyer just picked a currently popular law. He could have cited anything, sure it sounds a little more likely than if he had said " your commercial website is in violation of numerous ATF regulations and the National Firearms Act, as anyone of those boxes could be modified for use as an unregistered suppressor, or converted to high explosives by the use of a suitable oxidizer", but it's equally stupid.

    4. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I tell ya, we are rapidly approaching a time when anyone with money and power can attack anyone else, for any reason, under the guise of some byzantine law that no one understands, or agrees with, even the people who passed it.

      Actually, IMHO, the DMCA is one of the easier laws to read and understand from the common man's aspect. I'm not a lawyer and I certainly understand it. While it's not a great law and has many many pitfalls in it this lawsuit may be a good thing; perhaps this will help to set a precedent to dull the edge of the DMCA. I can't imagine this lawsuit getting a serious review in any real court system. In most likeliness they perp will have to drop their website, or at least the "donate now" content and FedEx will get a big zero in "damages". If this isn't the case we need to question; what's worse, the law or the judges who can't interpret them?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      In many countries like Brazil, it's completely impossible to run a business and abide by the labyrinthe of complicated and conflicting laws

      Odd, that sounds just like the movie "Brazil".

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    6. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      My boss's wife is from Brazil and he's done business there and many other parts of the world. We've really got it good here in the U.S., but our leaders, of both parties, are doing their darnedest to screw it up... and not because they are stupid (although some are).

      The number of registered lobbyists has something like quadrupled since 2000. One man/one vote is quickly becoming one million bucks/one vote. Of course, it's an inevitable consequence of the Federal government being so big. There's no way it could be any different... it's the government. It is even resembled what our Founding Fathers intended to create, and created, it wouldn't be such a problem.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by ucblockhead · · Score: 1
      The trouble is that people don't understand what a "Cease and Desist" is. It's a piece of paper. It's a lawyer saying something. That's it. It has NO legal standing. None. Nada. There's also NO limits to what it can contain. None. Nada. All it is is a document that says "If you don't stop X, we will sue". You do not need to have a case to send a cease and desist! It isn't a fancy legal document. It is just a letter. Nothing more.

      You want to join the fun? No problem! Just write one up! Send a "Cease and Desist being bozos!" to Fedex.

      The way to fight these things is to know your rights. Consult a lawyer so that you can tell the difference between a complete bluff and a real warning. In many cases, the lawyers who write these things know they have no case and have no intention whatsoever of filing a claim. They are just hoping that for the cost of a letter they can scare some poor schmuck into doing what they want.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    8. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many countries like Brazil, it's completely impossible to run a business and abide by the labyrinthe of complicated and conflicting laws. Is this the kind of country we want in the U.S.?

      No, that's precisely why we keep Brazil way down in S. America

    9. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by craXORjack · · Score: 1
      I guess the lawyers need someone to beat up or they start getting cranky.

      It's not really the lawyers fault. Just look at this guy. Are you familiar with the expression 'beaten like a red headed stepchild'?

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    10. Re:Just another step on the road to hell... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      No, it should be more of a matter of:

      Party A makes legal threats to Party B
      Party B ignores threats since Party A doesn't have a leg to stand on

      The problem is that then next step is:

      Party A ruins Party A because you can always find a venue that will take up any case however absurd, and proceeds to throttle Party B to death with legal fees by dragging it through the courts for years.

      Party A wins despite not having a leg to stand on.

      It all comes back to the fact that the American judicial system has been infiltrated by aliens, which is the only thing that could explain the utter nonsense coming out of it on a daily basis.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  32. Even better! by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny
    You put your stuff in those boxes, print out a postage label, slap it on the box, call up UPS and they move your stuff for you!

    Probably cheaper & safer than hiring "Luigi's take your stuff and jack up our rates while we hold your stuff for ransom movers".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Even better! by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 5, Informative

      I want my possessions to come to my apartment intact, not broken in 1000 pieces and the edges of the box smashed in.

      Seriously, UPS has the worst track record in package handling. One time I was looking for a job during college.. I went to UPS and they took us on a tour of their package handling facilities. You will never want to be a customer of UPS after you tour their facilities. They don't care about your package. The people who work there have to work their "packages per hour" number.. if they get too low, they get fired, so quality/careful handling doesn't simply exist at UPS.

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    2. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having just quit UPS last week, I can second Kiaser's observations. When you have three trucks to load with about 200-300 packages each, your primary concern is getting those boxes off the belt and in their right place on the truck as quickly as possible. If you spent your time trying to be delicate about it, you'd be up to your ass in packages. Because for everyone one you take off, there's three or four to take its place.

      And at 9.50/hour in 95 degree heat inside the warehouse, the condition of your package is the least of my concerns.

      For those considering a career at UPS: please first consider dealing smack or pimping out underaged runaways. It's a good deal more fulfilling.

    3. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of crock. I work at the same UPS factory as you and it never gets even close to 95 degrees inside.

    4. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say which factory he worked at, so you're either stupid or a troll.

      95 degrees is thankful in comparison. When its 95 degrees out here, it will probably be 100+ inside the facility during the day. There isn't any A/C, just a few impotent fans to circulate some air.

      Also, it depends on which shift you work. If you work the really late shift or the morning shift, its not going to be near as bad.

    5. Re:Even better! by Pope · · Score: 1

      And the worst part is that the union capitulated on this, even though it was pretty obvious to the line workers that there's only so many boxes you can move in any given time.

      Management leaned too hard on the broomsticks that were up their asses, and the union asked if they could get them a fresh one. It's disgusting on both sides.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:Even better! by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Best quote from the article: "it's OK to be ghetto."

      I don't think he meant to take it quite so far as dealing smack or pimping out underaged runaways, though.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    7. Re:Even better! by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I want my possessions to come to my apartment intact, not broken in 1000 pieces and the edges of the box smashed in. Seriously, UPS has the worst track record in package handling."

      Something like this eh ?

      http://www.spikedhumor.com/Article.aspx?id=767

    8. Re:Even better! by Phantom+Zmoove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, I still work at ups and your numbers are a little off. I think the starting pay is only $8.50 an hour and the temp is a little closer to 110 (I guess depending on what state your in) Plus the loaders usually put about 900-1000 boxes in each trailer. So if anything, your assessment of the situation was generous. It is a hard place to work. I didn't want to nitpick, but if people complain about spelling and correct you on your astronomical calculations down to .00001% I figured this would be okay.

    9. Re:Even better! by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      As someone who was once a package handler (no jokes please, I've heard them all) and a driver under a contractor for FedEx Ground, I can say it is no better there. Possibly worse, as there is no union to stand up to management.

      The delivery vans are roughly 200-300 packages each, but if you have a straight truck to deal with it gets to be more, and the poor bastards who have to load the freight trailers should be shot on site like you would a lame horse. It is that bad.

    10. Re:Even better! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yah I used to work at UPS too. I had the 95 degree working conditions loading trucks, but that wasn't as bad as when I got my $1 an hour raise to sort packages, elbow to elbow with assholes. They'd be crude, and even body check you occassionally. But you're only working for 4 hours a night anyway... My true stories of bad work come from minimum wage labor at Sony for 12 hours straight, where its like 100 degrees, and you're wearing a chemical suit, and doing non stop movement around razor sharp metal that you have to handle, meinwhile the pressurized piping around you may break which fired out sulfuric acid on occassion. But I can't bitch, theres people with far worse jobs out there.

      Anyway I remember doing UPS when I was going to CMU... And if you think its awful to be loaded under massive coursework, and dead sociallife at CMU, imagine commuting 2 hours to go to a suckass job. I'm so glad I graduated from Carnegie Mellon with a scientific computing degree. It'd be nice to have a job, but some jobs are better off not done...

      That being said, I actually liked lifting boxes into a trailer. It reminded me of a mix between going to the gym and tetris. Suckers pay to go to the gym, when you can get paid to lift boxes. Of course, when you're loading trucks, theres no chance for a hot chick to wander past. But I guess thats the price you gotta pay if you want to work most anywhere.

    11. Re:Even better! by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      Dammit, shot on sight, not site.

    12. Re:Even better! by xphase · · Score: 1

      Isn't getting shot on site what we call "going postal"?

      Your sentance was meaningful, in the same context, with either sight or site.

      I agree that they should be shot at the warehouse, etc.

      --
      The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.
    13. Re:Even better! by dfjghsk · · Score: 1

      actually.. fedex is consistently ranked one of the best places to work for.. so I imagine its quite a bit better than UPS.

      --
      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    14. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those considering a career at UPS: please first consider dealing smack or pimping out underaged runaways. It's a good deal more fulfilling.

      What isn't?

    15. Re:Even better! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      You sould think OSHA would have something to say about 110 degree *INDOOR* working conditions. At those temperatures, especially when performing heavy physical labor, heatstroke is a high possibility.

      I can't believe they're too cheap to air condition their warehouses. $9 an hour is not enough to work in those conditions.

      -Z

    16. Re:Even better! by killermookie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoever modded this up needs should have their points taken away.

      I have mod points but instead of modding you down I'd rather say this:

      I worked at UPS while going to collage and all I can say is that it was the best part-time job I ever had. I worked there for over 4 years and was making $12.50 an hour by the time I left.

      In addition to having a great pay, I also received full-time benefits! Plus if I wanted to continue my job at UPS there was the option to become a driver. Yes, it's hard manual labor but pay is great.

      I worked in the Henrietta, NY warehouse where the summers are 95% humidity, 90 degrees and the winters get to 0 degrees.

      So suck it up! It's manual labor! If you're too much of a wuss to handle hard labor then stay with a desk job.

      BTW, I left UPS to start a career in IT in the Bay Area and that's where I am today.

      Thank you UPS for giving my the cash to move out here!

    17. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unload/load makes 8.50 Pre-load (loading the brown trucks, which is what i do until 9:30am tomorrow) is 9.50

    18. Re:Even better! by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      Yes, OSHA is very strict about keeping the water coolers full (not cool, just full). Honestly, I'm not sure what OSHA's policy is. However, it regularly hits 110 in the warehouse I work in. After several employees succumbed to heat stroke, they installed portable coolers filled with water and made sure everyone knew to drink plenty of water.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    19. Re:Even better! by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting dichotomy:

      Working as a package handler - inbound or outbound- is atrocious.

      Working as a contractor can be quite rewarding, but for many people it is not. I can only speak from what I've seen at two different locations in Michigan, and only for Ground. Technically, the Express, Custom Critical, and Freight services are all seperate entities. Even so, the contractors are not treated as contractors, and if a manager says you are taking a stop from someone else, you will take it. The requirements for a days work varies by route, but often drive time to or from your area is not taken into consideration, nor is the overall area you must cover. FedEx Ground does not give two shits about its contractors.

      Any place that has an average turnover rate of more than 50% in 3 months (package handling) has some problems. We were given one set of standards- including things such as anything over X weight, get help, don't throw boxes, etc.- but routinely expected to lift the 125lb spool of wire up and onto a conveyor system by ourselves. Stopping because the belt jammed up? No way! It has to stay moving, moving. Stopping because everything coming down the belt is for one truck, and people can't come up? Not an option! But can we at least get some help? Nope! Sorry!

    20. Re:Even better! by karmatic · · Score: 1

      I'll trade ya. I work in the Phoenix Airport. $7.00/hour, in 130 degree heat (on the tarmac).

    21. Re:Even better! by balin · · Score: 1

      Thank you, killermookie, for bringing a little sanity to the conversation! It's funny how quickly people forget that delivery companies (UPS especially) pay very well because they realize that most people don't consider that work fun. A lot of college kids use it to help pay for school, just like you. After all, it IS manual labor. The bottom line is -- UPS is a good company to work for.

    22. Re:Even better! by kraut · · Score: 1

      >or those considering a career at UPS: please first consider dealing smack or pimping out underaged runaways. It's a good deal more fulfilling.

      It probably pays a lot better as well!

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    23. Re:Even better! by stretch0611 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For those considering a career at UPS: please first consider dealing smack or pimping out underaged runaways. It's a good deal more fulfilling.

      I also worked for UPS. However, I worked as a programmer for them and I never touched a package.

      I agree, you do not want to work for UPS.

      • In my last performance appraisal before I quit, my Project Leader wanted to give me a 5.4 (out of 6) but our Project Manager forced her to lower it to 4.8 because I did not work enough unpaid overtime.
      • Upper management does not understand that thinking about how to solve a problem is work. In their mind, if you are not typing, you are not working. Also, many do not value your job if it does not involve touching a package.
      • While I was working in Mahwah, NJ and Paramus, NJ, The nearby hubs would the IT department for volunteers to help delivering packages during the Christmas rush. If you did not volunteer they looked at you funny.

      Actually I had a few more problems working there but the above is just a small example of the problems working for UPS.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    24. Re:Even better! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      110 degrees?

      Won't that make any computers or even motors that drive the belts overheat?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    25. Re:Even better! by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      Once I got a box from UPS that was badly smashed, and--here's the kicker--it had a big dusty footprint on top of it. At first, I thought the guy had just stomped on it for fun, but later I figured he probably just climbed over it to get to another package in the truck.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    26. Re:Even better! by Shakesphere · · Score: 1

      Oh, you worked at the Sony Killbot factory too? I recieved massives scars on the left side of my face when a T-32K series Mankiller escaped from its terminus housing spraying me and my co-workers with terrible amounts of acid (or robot-blood as we in the business like to call it). Ken Kutaragi tried to pin the blam on a Gundam attack that happened earlier that week, but we all know it was more a product of the company's lackadaisical approach to workplace safety.

      --
      "I'm not the street on operas" - CrazyJim1
    27. Re:Even better! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Seriously, UPS has the worst track record in package handling
      I've had much worse results with Fedex which have cost me far more than simply buying the equipment in the country where it had to go to instead of shipping it there for the few months required. When Fedex loses customs paperwork it can cost you a fortune, and when they drop a server you need to buy a new one and then wait for an unknown number of months for the claim to get through their system with dealing with people that refuse to give their last name, a direct phone number, or an email address that is accessable outside of Fedex. Perhaps it's better within the USA, but in some parts of the world Fedex would be my last choice.
    28. Re:Even better! by ap0 · · Score: 1

      UPS is a great job for taking out anger. I enjoy my ability to throw, smash, or otherwise destroy packages and get paid for it. My supervisors sometimes even encourage it. In training, we were taught the "make it fit" mantra -- make the box fit; damage is irrelevant. We're forced to load 600 pph, though -- we get yelled at if we go too slow. A good workout and stress reliever; that's what working at UPS is really about.

    29. Re:Even better! by Mike570 · · Score: 1

      One time I ordered an exercise machine and had it shipped UPS. The guy who delivered it handed me a mangled box that was falling apart in his hands and stuff was falling out of it. I couldn't believe he delivered that box with a straight face. Anyway, I opened it up and all the parts were scratched and they somehow even managed to crush the batteries! I called UPS and complained and was basically told "I'm sorry." Needless to say, I consider UPS one of the worst shipping companies out there. They should change their slogan to "What can brown destroy for you?" I've never had a problem with USPS (other than poor tracking info), so I plan on sticking with them.

    30. Re:Even better! by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the belts. I don't deal with them. As for the computers, it depends on how they are being used. Computers that are used for light-weight Internet use or occasional database lookups seem to handle it alright. The servers are kept in an air-conditioned room. However, installing XP, at 3PM after the warehouse has been thoroughly baked, isn't going to happen. Though we've had limited success with using floor fans to keep computers cool.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    31. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx Ground does not give two shits about its contractors.

      That would be because FedEx Ground is simply Roadway Package Systems (RPS), that they bought out and re-branded. And RPS was not known for high standards either in its day.

  33. Universal, foolproof 2-step legal attack: by DarkHand · · Score: 1

    The universal foolproof 2-step legal attack: 1. Yell 'DMCA! DMCA! DMCA!' at the person you want to stop doing whatever it is they're doing. 2. Profit!

  34. WTF? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since a cardboard box isn't Digital, and he's not Copying anything, how is DMCA applicable?

    Illegal use of their trademark maybe, since he's got a web-page up (allegedly, the site seems slashdotted) showing their boxes with their logo on it.

    But he didn't do anything to circumvent anything resembling a copy-protection mechanism or otherwise infringe on the copyrights of FedEx.

    How in heck could the DMCA even be applicable here?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it has digital in the name doesn't mean lawyers can't try to have it's scope enlarged by an interpretive judge.

  35. Correct by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    Even if they got copyright protection for their boxes somehow, his use of their product falls under "fair use": it's a different purpose than they used for their work, like making mobiles out of AOL CDs.

    He should countersue for tortious interference or something.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  36. Forget FedEx, /. just put him out of business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    poor server

  37. If we had the DMCA in the 60s... by VValdo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Andy Warhol would be in a lot of trouble.

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well not to worry, if they can't get Warhol, they'll get his fans...

      Oh the bitter irony...

    2. Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s... by interiot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this case, "They" would be the owners of the late Andy Warhol's work, not Campbell Soup Company.

    3. Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Do you think they used the DMCA to close him down?

    4. Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s... by belarm314 · · Score: 1

      They didn't use any law to shut down the website...they used a threatening letter

      Many times, unless a legal organization will do pro bono work for the accused, most of the sites that have been threatened with DMCA or other, equally crazy laws, see the threats as being possibly valid and, knowing they can't pay for a lawyer or for the damages they might owe, they allow themselves to be censored.

      This is one of the worst side effects of this kind of crap legislation; the average person, not really having a great legal background, and seeing that similar, just as ludicrous charges being upheld in the courts (or see others relent before court), and hence don't even try to fight.

      --
      When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
    5. Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s... by jon_oner · · Score: 1

      You may be on the right track. All the guy has to to is call his work "art" and Voila! no more violation of copyright.

  38. Questionable spending choices by winkydink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He can afford to spend money on a laptop and orange hair dye but not necessities. Misplaced priorities? More likely a publicity stunt.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Questionable spending choices by radish · · Score: 1

      Indeed - someone needs to send him an Ikea catalogue.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:Questionable spending choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may shock you, but a lot of people don't consider furniture a high priority.

      I've managed to survive for five years now with garage sale scraps and lawn chairs. At the same time I regularly upgrade my computers, buy hardcover novels, comic books and other luxuries.

      Sure I don't get any play, but neither does anyone who reads slashdot comments at this mod level so don't bother pretending.

    3. Re:Questionable spending choices by NewStarRising · · Score: 1

      He COULD afford to pay for a laptop. He now has a laptop.
      He then moved house, and is temporarily without much in the way of liquid assets.
      Ratehr than sell his 2nd hand laptop for a huge loss(both financially and ability-to-do-his-job-as-a-programmer-wise), he chose to keep his laptop and skimp on furniture costs until his outgoing stabilise.
      Priorities? Not misplaced at all.
      He then saw an opportunity to tell some geeks about his "new use for old stuff" (which has long been an interest of geeks).

      Publicity stunt? no more than your post trying to publicise your views/opinions.

      Parent modded as interesting? Not by me. I'd rather look at a flat furnished with UPS boxes than read such judgemental tripe.

      --
      b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
      MadDwarf
    4. Re:Questionable spending choices by BillX · · Score: 1

      Or 1000 of them and a roll of Duct tape.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  39. DMCA? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    While it seems they MIGHT have a trademark dispute against him (since he is using their trademark in a fashion for which they do not wish to be associated), can somebody explain in what universe something that is supposed to govern encrypted digital copyrighted works is applicable to this situation? The only digital copyrighted material involved here is the guy's website, and as the author, _he_ has the copyright on the relevant digital works, not Fedex.

    1. Re:DMCA? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      See, you're assuming that laws are named to describe what they do. Big mistake.

      Buried deep in the DMCA, you'll find the passage "...inasmuch as Corporations now do in truth own the Government, Corporations will hereby be granted power over the Government when it shall be necessary for Corporations to increase Profit."

      Ok, not really, but do me a favor and look up the "Range Safety Act" and the my new favorite from that ass-clown Rick Santorum, the "National Weather Services Duties Act".

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  40. Fuck FedEx... order some boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should all just order a ton of free boxes from FedEx to show them how stupid they are! I know what I'm using in my fireplace this winter!

  41. Poor FedEx Pope by DragonMagic · · Score: 2, Funny

    He can't catch a break.

    --

    Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
  42. FedEx likes their TM by mediaslave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remembered them going after a coffee shop dba Federal Espresso in my home town a while back... found this:

    http://www.lexnotes.com/sources/subs/cases/2ndCir_ 98-9430.shtml

    I believe they had to change their name, but funnily enough someone in San Fran is running a Federal Espresso now:

    http://www.usrg.com/drg3/san_francisco/r/39/r3913. html

    Maybe someone should warn them...

    --
    -- "the revolution will not be televised" -Gil Scott-Heron
    1. Re:FedEx likes their TM by alteridem · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It looks like in the end they did not have to change their name. If you read the conclusion of the ruling;
      "Having considered all of Federal Express's contentions on this appeal and having found in them no merit except as indicated above, we see no basis for reversal. The order of the district court denying a preliminary injunction is affirmed."
  43. He's a nerd, without a doubt. by mark-t · · Score: 2, Funny
    FTA:
    The bed can handle his 5-foot-6-inch, 165-pound frame, even when he jumps up and down on it (an experiment he tried in response to an e-mail asking if the bed could support two people).
    1. Re:He's a nerd, without a doubt. by JahToasted · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think if your furniture is made out of Fedex boxes you aren't going to have many women staying the night. Even if you're willing to pay them.

    2. Re:He's a nerd, without a doubt. by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      That's because overnight is by far the most expensive. He probably can't afford it.

  44. The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by pergamon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shipping supplies from the USPS state very clearly that they're the property of the USPS. The first time you order a shipment of boxes from the USPS, they make you sign something saying that you acknowledge this fact and that those supplies are indeed only for the purpose of sending stuff by means of USPS.

    I had thought Fedex and UPS did the same, but I just examined a couple Fedex medium boxes we had laying around here and they don't say anything of the sort.

  45. Windows? by ficken · · Score: 1

    What would have happened if he had used Windows instead of boxes?

    --
    Victory shall be mine!
    1. Re:Windows? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      boxen?

  46. This is why every one cheers by blamanj · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...at the line from King Henry VI, Part II

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

        -- William Shakespeare

    1. Re:This is why every one cheers by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1
      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  47. Hmmm by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty conflicted about this.
    On the one hand I'd hate to see this guy's right to publish his ideas on the internet get quashed.
    But on the other, I'd hate to see FedEx get taken advantage of for providing a very useful service.
    ...
    I don't know who to root for.

    --

    Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    1. Re:Hmmm by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      FedEx got taken advantage of, because they are stupid.

      To get the boxes, you have to have an account.

      Now, when an account that does a low volume of shipping asks for an unusually large number of boxes, don't you think it might be a good idea to ask for a deposit?

      All it would take is for them to require a monetary deposit that would be applied as a credit on the account for future shipping costs when an unusually large amount of materials is requested. The end-result is that the boxes are still free, as long as the customer actually uses them for shipping. And small customers who ask for small amounts of shipping materials would still get them without charge.

  48. FedEx Sued Him Just for the Slashdotting... by KnarfO · · Score: 2, Funny

    I doubt FedEx really cares about the suit; they just wanted to do something crazy enough to pop up on the /. radar so we'd all go over and melt down his server.

    We've been duped!!
     
    :-/

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    1. Re:FedEx Sued Him Just for the Slashdotting... by mshmgi · · Score: 1

      We've been duped

      No .. the "dupe" will apear here next Tuesday.

    2. Re:FedEx Sued Him Just for the Slashdotting... by stienman · · Score: 1

      We've been duped!!

      No, the dupe usually happens 12-72 hours after the original article.

      -Adam

  49. Slashdotted? by k98sven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hmm..

    1) Someone puts up a website that irritates your corporation
    2) File a frivolous lawsuit against the website
    3) Wait until Slashdot picks up the resulting story
    4) Watch the site go down in flames due to the subsequent slashdotting.
    5) Objective achived, site is offline!

    Slashdot - greater threat to free speech than the DMCA? :)

    1. Re:Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed one point:

      6) Get thousands of people see the brand name magically associated with durability and strength.

      Global blitz campaign for a price of a Wired article and a .com domain name.

    2. Re:Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6) Profit!!

    3. Re:Slashdotted? by DustinB · · Score: 1

      7) PROFIT!!!

    4. Re:Slashdotted? by BillX · · Score: 1

      5) Objective achived,

      It was even funnier when I misread that as "archived"

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  50. he is a software developer by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    expecting him to not have own computer is just stupid.

    sum.zero

    1. Re:he is a software developer by winkydink · · Score: 1

      I said "laptop" not computer. If one has no money, a laptop (versus a desktop) is, IMHO, a questionable expense.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:he is a software developer by sum.zero · · Score: 1

      first, a basic laptop suitable for coding work can be had for considerably less that $1000. that is not an extreme expense, especially if work related and tax deductible.

      second, you have no idea of where, when and how he acquired the laptop.

      in closing, you are making some large assumptions and then jumping to a questionable conclusion that includes an attack on the person's character.

      sum.zero

    3. Re:he is a software developer by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Regardless of where he acquired the laptop, he can convert that laptop into a desktop + cash.

      As he has no money, which I assume means no income, a tax deduction serves no purpose.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    4. Re:he is a software developer by sum.zero · · Score: 1

      he can convert the laptop at a loss [time and money] and likely considerable inconvenience.

      now if he gains a large amount of proiductivity by having the laptop as opposed to having to send data back and forth from the office or whatever, then he is saving/gaining money and time by having the laptop.

      again, your argument was pretty baseless and lacked any appreciation for complexity. you saw it your way and decided that your very limted criteria in making that decision are the only relevant ones.

      sum.zero

    5. Re:he is a software developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he could have stolen the laptop too!

  51. Wired vs. Slashdot by ds_job · · Score: 2, Funny

    It just goes to show the level of interest / level of readership both sites have. I saw this on Wired earlier, clicked the link and had a butchers, saw lots of nice photos of furniture made from cardboard and then got back to doing some proper work. Then this appears in my RSS reader and I go back to have another chortle and the damn thing is unreachable. Slashdot and aa419.org should team up and become the worlds largest manual instigated DDOS system

  52. In related news... by TheJorge · · Score: 1

    CSC Brands, the owner of the Campbell's soup trademark is suing the estate of Andy Warhol for copyright violation.

  53. NEWS FLASH!!! by SquiggleButt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Man in Redkneck, USA patents flatulance, sues Tom, Dick and Harry for farting in public without paying license fees!!! Movie at 11!

  54. Hmmm ... by hotspotbloc · · Score: 1

    FedEx boxes are one of few supplies in an office that no one tracks so am I the only one thinking "I really need a couch in the cubicle?" Guess I can make a pillow from a trash can liner and packing peanuts.

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  55. Exactly when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be curious to know when this guy broke a law.

    Was it as soon as he used the boxes for something other than shipping a package through fedex, when he took a picture of it, when he shared the picture with his friends, when he posted it on the bulletin board at the grocery store (hypothetically), or when he placed it on the Web.

  56. This is a demand curve. It wants to be your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm quite certain UPS sets their fees based on what they believe consumers are willing to pay, not based on how many cardboard boxes they had to give away.

  57. Wake me up when this becomes a story... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    This is a funny story, but really a non-story that will fade quickly. In all likelihood, if this guy had simply ignored the letter, he would not have heard from FedEx again. Companies like FedEx shotgun out this type of stuff and simply wait to see what floats to the top, like chumming the waters. Non-issue, non-story. Move along.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Wake me up when this becomes a story... by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Not true. Jose's a friend and a co-worker of mine.

      FedEx didn't send a letter right away. The *first* thing they did was call his ISP and threaten them with DMCA action if they didn't shut the site down. Only after they refused did they contact Jose, at which point, Jose told them to put it in writing, and contacted his attorney. Even so, had they been even remotely reasonable, Jose probably would have worked something out with them. Instead, they threatened him with everything in and out of the book, and generally behaved like thugs.

      Frankly, at this point, there's almost no way FedEx will come out of this with *anything* in their favor. Using the DMCA without justification puts them in a position to be countersued if they push too hard. (BTW, they haven't actually filed suit, nor officially announced intention to do so yet, they're still just blustering and threatening.)

    2. Re:Wake me up when this becomes a story... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      It's still a non-issue. Had "Jose" simply ignored the letter, almost certainly nothing more would have come of it.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:Wake me up when this becomes a story... by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      I guarantee that ignoring it would not have made it go away. I'm pretty familiar with the whole situation, and trying to ignore this would have been a complete disaster.

      Tell me, when a truck is headed straight toward you, do you just ignore it and figure nothing will come of it?

    4. Re:Wake me up when this becomes a story... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      The world is full of people wanting to make "little scenes", make ideological stands and such, people who think their little problem is some Earth-shaking issue. The reality is that these "issues" are rarely real issues.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  58. I don't live in the states but ... by chrome · · Score: 1, Interesting

    this just makes me go HUH!?

    I mean, what kind of demented, bored, halfwit lawyer decides it would be a good idea to SUE a guy making FURNATURE out of PACKING MATERIALS?!

    I mean, COME ON! Give the guy a break!

    Hey, that guy is so poor, he obviously needs more problems, so lets slap a lawsuit onto him! Yeah!

    Great idea!

    Bastards.

    1. Re:I don't live in the states but ... by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      > I mean, COME ON! Give the guy a break!
      > Hey, that guy is so poor, he obviously needs more problems, so lets slap a lawsuit onto him! Yeah!

      Why does anyone think he's poor? Those are not exactly cheap black sheets and comforter on his fedex bed.

      jfs

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  59. 3rd world birdwatching by bad_outlook · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this should be considered for 3rd world countries; instead of companies throwing out boxes in those countries, they could follow some of these designs and hand out cardboard with instructions on how people could use it as furniture. I'll bet once a frame is built it would be nothing to put some lightweight padding and fabric on it, making it appear as more traditional furn. Plus I like the guys' hair, once I get outta this fortune 500 corpy-corp place I work I want to go that route, save red (Run Lola Run) not pink.

    1. Re:3rd world birdwatching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, clearly thems thirdsworldfolks is too dum to make stuff outta cardboard boxes. Maybe we should ship our 5-year children over as instructors.

    2. Re:3rd world birdwatching by bad_outlook · · Score: 1

      The point was for other countries to use more resources that they have and would otherwise go to waste. As for instructions, there's probably many ways to shore up and frame the insides of the furnuture, and it sounds like this guy has figured some of them out; why not send complete directions on how to make efficient use of materials? Your attempt at trolling missed the point (or perhaps that was your point)

  60. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by dthrall · · Score: 1
    So what does that mean?

    The US Postal workers are going to come by and swipe your furniture?

    Better yet, get the police to do that... I can just imaging the report they'd file:
    "Upon receiving a warrant, we proceeded to enter the suspect's home. We arrested him for hoarding a large supply of shipping goods (which were confiscated and returned to their rightful owner)"
  61. Roland, is that you? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    It is not requested by all site owners. Pageview counts are important for commercial sites.

    Like Roland???

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  62. Nice Dinette set... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...I like the way he slipped Tux into the picture, obviously pandering to the /. crowd!

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  63. What FEDEX is accomplishing with this by Skapare · · Score: 0

    Because of this threat, I will now refuse to use free FEDEX boxes to build my own furniture, computer cases, awnings, windshield sun reflectors, etc. So I guess FEDEX will lose my ... uh ... oh wait!

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  64. It looks crappy... by ho_hocognitive · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...but boy is it a good hack! Imagine if we all started making our own furniture. You could have the cardboard house of your dreams...

  65. White Spot by Rac3r5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A friend of mine had been working for whiteSpot for about 5 or 6 yrs as a server.

    He was studying comp sci with me. In his first yr, he made a Duke Nukem Map with the whiteSpot logo in one of the maps.

    Anyway, he forgot about this. In our fourth year, he informs me that whiteSpot just fired him on the spot because of the map. They didn't ask him to take it down or anything. They just fired him. He showed me some screenShots of the map, and it didn't seem like he was defaming whiteSpot. To me it looked more like free, unintended advertising for whiteSpot.

    Pretty sh1tty deal if you ask me.

  66. Obviously! by isa-kuruption · · Score: 5, Funny
    The bed can handle his 5-foot-6-inch, 165-pound frame, even when he jumps up and down on it (an experiment he tried in response to an e-mail asking if the bed could support two people).


    And the reason he couldn't actually test his bed with two people on it obvious.... right?
    1. Re:Obviously! by Dracolytch · · Score: 1
      Amazingly enough, from the site:
      This table was put together realy quick as I had a friend driving out from CA to visit. It has a candle on it from one night when I had a date; however i forgot to buy a candle to light it. (NOTE: I do not reccomend fedex furniture if you are looking to impress a date.) Looks like the only action ill be seeing is with the penguin hanging from the chandalier.
      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    2. Re:Obviously! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The scary part is that he says he'll be seeing "action" with the penguin. Sticking a Fleshlight(tm) in a plushy Tux wasn't one of the hacks mentioned in the new O'Reilly book...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Obviously! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite part of the site is this quote under the picture of the table:
      This table was put together realy quick as I had a friend driving out from CA to visit. It has a candle on it from one night when I had a date; however i forgot to buy a candle to light it. (NOTE: I do not reccomend fedex furniture if you are looking to impress a date.) Looks like the only action ill be seeing is with the penguin hanging from the chandalier.

  67. Re:Heya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Looks like he made his webserver out of FedEx boxes too!

  68. and Stanford cyberlaw wrote one back by dubbreak · · Score: 1

    The response to the letter (warning pdf)here.

    Some interesting citings. I like the one about Mattel vs teh guy who made sex poses with barbies and sold them as art.

    --
    "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  69. This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by doublem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The free boxes they send out are intended for customers. Instead of making money, they're subsidizing someone else's furniture needs.

    I can understand them being upset about this, and I'm hard pressed to think of an appropriate response. Updating the terms under which they ship people free boxes so this behavior is banned, and then asking the web site owner to add a highly visible notice explaining this would have been far more reasonable, and just as effective.

    Now, there will be a whole host of mirror sites. A web site that would have been a fun curiosity has now been made infamous. Many more people will now be directed to this site than would have otherwise seen it.

    This is a backfiring legal strategy if I ever saw one.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 1

      This is easily avoided if FedEx/UPS does a background check on their customers.

      How many shipments has this person made in the past year?

      Is this a brand new customer we never heard of before ordering 500 boxes?

      Does an individual who is not registered as a business with us really need that many boxes?

      etc.

      This really seems like common sense. I kinda dropped my jaw when I saw that I could literally order as many free boxes from UPS as I wanted.

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    2. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by doublem · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Of course, I have to wonder what such a tracking system would cost for FedEx to design and implement. This may be the very thing FedEx executives considered, and decided the lawyers would be less expensive.

      Naturally, such a system should have been implemented from the beginning, and the PHB who decided otherwise may very well be calling out the lawyers to cover his incompetent arse.

      Then again, they might have calculated the customer side inconvenience of such a system, and decided it would be better to let a few boxes slip through the cracks than to make it any more difficult for FedEx customers to get boxes.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    3. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by Twanfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the thing. You cannot sue someone under the DMCA unless they're violating DIGITAL copyrights, most notably circumvention of a device to protect against illegal copying (or legal copying, frankly. Another debate for later).

      So, what legal leg does FedEx hope to stand on? They offered to send these boxes to people for free. Yes, they were intended for shipping, but there was no agreement made that says "You must ship with us with these supplies." End result? FedEx is going to lose this one. They offered free supplies, and someone took'm.

    4. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by doublem · · Score: 1

      No legal legs at all.

      This is a SLAPP lawsuit.

      Use lawyers to shut the guy up, plain and simple.

      Sadly for them, it has backfired.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    5. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by monkeydo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the thing. You cannot sue someone under the DMCA unless they're violating DIGITAL copyrights, most notably circumvention of a device to protect against illegal copying (or legal copying, frankly. Another debate for later).

      Here's the thing. You're wrong. circumvention of copyprotection devices is but one section of the DMCA. There are others. Try reading it sometime. You might be surprised at how little you learn from /.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    6. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by LarsG · · Score: 3, Informative

      most notably circumvention

      Anticircumvention is only a part of the DMCA. FedEx tried to invoke 'notice and takedown' (see title II in the linked article).

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    7. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Notice and Takedown" still only applies if you're the copyright holder. If I were the furniture guy, I'd be getting a lawyer and taking FedEx to court to have them explain under perjury exactly how they own the copyright to any of the photographs he took or any other material presented on the website. Then when they fail miserably, use the court transcript of their blubbering and whining for the damages case provided for by the DMCA for cases like this where some company oversteps its bounds. This case is a shoe-in for a lawyer to take on contingency.

      From DMCA Title II which some other idiot helpfully suggested that people should read, to shore up their empty argument:
      (a) TRANSITORY DIGITAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS.--A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright
      ... and it's all like this. Every section of Title II specifically covers copyright infringement, and only copyright infringement.
    8. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now, there will be a whole host of mirror sites. A web site that would have been a fun curiosity has now been made infamous. Many more people will now be directed to this site than would have otherwise seen it.

      This is a backfiring legal strategy if I ever saw one.

      You can't buy that kind of advertising. Now EVERYONE is reminded that Fed Ex gives free boxes. No matter that UPS and USPS do it too, only Fed Ex gets the credit in the mind of someone who doesn't already know.

      Woohoo, let's go to Fed Ex's website and get some free boxes!!1oneone! That'll teach those dirty bastards to pick on the little guy! W00T, Fed Ex is giving away a 50" plasma TV. Rock on man! I'll get to the boxes in a second, I'm gonna win that puppy!

      The article submitter probably works for Fed Ex.

    9. Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit by LarsG · · Score: 1

      From DMCA Title II which some other idiot helpfully suggested that people should read, to shore up their empty argument

      I am that 'idiot', and you sir need to calm down.

      The poster I replied to went on a ballistic rant because he thought FedEx had invoked the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA. If he had RTFA he'd know hat they had invoked 'notice and takedown' instead, and I merely made him aware of that fact.

      Nowhere did I state that I thought that FedEx was in their right to do so. At the very least this should become a PR nightmare for them.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
  70. Re:Perhaps a boycott should be in order. Here is Y by 314m678 · · Score: 1

    IIRC UPS is 2nd biggest donor to the Republican party,

  71. Oh dear... by mustafap · · Score: 1

    It seems like his server is made of cardboard too!

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  72. Blue Peter by Skiron · · Score: 1

    I wonder what wrath this will inflict on the generations of people brought up in the UK on Blue Peter? Will we all start getting sued by 'Sticky backed plastic', 'toilet roll' and 'washing-up bottle' Companies?

  73. Suggestions? by mopslik · · Score: 1

    FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx.

    1. Select one of the following:
      1. Stop giving away free boxes altogether
      2. Give away "free" boxes only with pre-paid postage
      3. Charge monthly/yearly fee for delivered supply of "free" boxes
    2. Apply to business model
    3. (obligatory) Profit!
  74. by *going after* do you mean taking the domain? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Do they want him to stop posting pictures of his work, do they want him to stop calling his site "fedexfurniture"?

    The second seems like a pretty reasonable protection of trademark. He should get a domain that doesn't have "fedex" in the name. Pretty easy.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:by *going after* do you mean taking the domain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademark is specific to the field in which it is applied. FedEx is not a furniture vendor, so I don't see what standing they have in this regard.

  75. Re:I know what I want pics and vids of... by stinerman · · Score: 1

    Sir, you've just created a new category of fetish.

    OMG secks on teh box!!!!

  76. planted story... by zxnos · · Score: 1
    Jose Avila built this table and chairs set from FedEx boxes and shipping supplies. The shipping company claims he's violating trademark and copyright laws and wants him to take down his website.

    this story must have been planted by fedex to take his site down...

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  77. Who owns stock in FEDEX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I did, I'd email the CEO with "As a stockholder, I am offended that you would waste my money on some as so fucking stupid as ..." You get the idea.

  78. Well... by MrIcee · · Score: 1
    • Fanciful as his creations may seem, FedEx is not amused. The shipping giant's lawyers have sent Avila letters demanding he take down the site he created to document his project, invoking, among other things, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (.pdf), or DMCA.

    FedEx doesn't have to worry - slashdot already took his site down for them. I wonder how much we should charge them... 100,000 people clicking away.

  79. We need this lawyer's NAME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and then need to campaign to get his/her sorry butt FIRED. They will keep this nonsense up until the end of time otherwise.

    1. Re:We need this lawyer's NAME by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
      His name is Les Bishop. Phone number and address are on the pdf linked to in the article.

      You know, filing a DMCA claim on an obviously trademark issues seems either grossly incompetent or, more likely, a frivilous claim. In the latter case, it would be an ethics violation for sure. Lawyers are under a duty to report violations of fellow attorneys, so I hope someone reports this if there is any violation.

      On another front, I've been in court with FedEx. Hate them now. They lost a package of mine and refused to reimburse me so I had to sue. Then they had the gall to tell me that I had complained to the wrong company or it would have been handled right away. Something about FedEx having 4 companies. I had called the claim number on my paperwork - so how did I get the "wrong" company?

      (Hates it that they own Kinko's now, since I have to use Kinko's occasionally.)

  80. A Simple Plan by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    1. Have someone (for free) demonstrate that your products are of really high quality and also very cool/hip. 2. Demonstrate (for about six figures paid to your lawyers) that you are a cranky imbecile. 3. ... ? 4. Break Even!

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  81. I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by autopr0n · · Score: 0

    To be quite honest, you seem like a lot more of a jackass then him. I'd rather go to lunch and hang out with with a 'hacker' taking advantage of an economic loophole then a thin-skinned priss like yourself.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Nope, I'm more of a crotchety old coot at this point. Not sure when it happened, but there ya go. Especially online.

      I admire the idea and would likely do it myself. I have no problem with it. The only problem I have is when somebody defends something or someone with the "it's legal, so it is okay" argument.

      Heck, I just started buying a large coffee cup full of half and half at the corner gas station the other day because I figured out it was cheaper than buying a container of half and half. That's pretty much along the same lines, and somebody could fault me the same way: "Gee, thanks... now coffee prices are going to go up". But I won't use the "hey, it's legal!" defense. I'll just say "hey, it's a nifty idea".

      If they *do* ask me to stop, I will stop. I most certainly won't stand in the station and moan and bitch at them that it's legal because there aren't any signs telling me not to and that it's my "right" to do it. I most certainly won't shoot back with "it's a free country".

      My objection is that the phrase "it's a free country" or "it's legal" is too often used in a kneejerk fashion to justify either impolite behavior or an unwillingness to accede to a polite request.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by zbuffered · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heck, I just started buying a large coffee cup full of half and half at the corner gas station the other day because I figured out it was cheaper than buying a container of half and half.

      I don't have a problem with that from a moral standpoint -- I figure we all have our little moral justifications that we use to save us a buck here and there at the expense of The Man. It all works out in the end. But from a time standpoint, I don't get it. How much is your time worth? How much time does that trip to the corner store take you that would've otherwise been saved had you just picked up the quart of half and half when you picked up the gallon of milk at the grocery store? And if you feel just the slightest twinge of guilt upon "cheating" the corner store out of $.60 worth of half and half, what is that worth to you?
      From a financial standpoint it doesn't make sense.

      It's kinda like the 3 hours I spent driving around town the other day looking for a single 7mm nut. $.23 plus tax, but 3 hours of my time plus gas.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    3. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      It's kinda like the 3 hours I spent driving around town the other day looking for a single 7mm nut.

      Replace that bastard with an M6 or an M8 if possible. My problem is finding metric bolts in any length greater than 25mm.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      I like the morning walk, and a large coffee cup of half and half lasts me for several days and a few pots of coffee. The morning walk is an enjoyable passage of time. The grocery store is a drive away and much less of an enjoyable section of time. Even if they were the same price, I'd probably prefer the corner walk than a few miles of driving.

      As for the moral question, I'm still mulling it over. I dislike the concept of "sticking it to The Man", as "The Man" that is thus stuck is usually a guy who took out a loan and/or morgaged his home to buy a franchise. "The Man" is also a dozen part time clerks and delivery guys who work there. I tend to see "screwing over a corporation" as screwing over the nice fellow who gave me directions when I was in his check out lane or the poor guy pushing carts in the parking lot.

      I'm guessing that they are still turning a profit with my cup of half and half. It's a big bulk refrigerated unit, so they likely buy it at a cheaper cost than the packaged containers. Probably the best thing to do would be to ask, but I have a feeling that the answer would depend on who happened to be there at the time, and wouldn't necessarily be the same at a later date.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    5. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Would if I could. The bolt was part of the horn assembly on my motorcycle. It came loose and was lost due to some kneedragging. Why they chose M7, the world will never know.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    6. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      And if you feel just the slightest twinge of guilt upon "cheating" the corner store out of $.60 worth of half and half, what is that worth to you?

      Your integrity.

      To me, I'll give up my integrity for no less than a few million dollars :) I'm often amused when people think they are "getting ahead" or "getting over on someone" by stealing junk from less than a dollar to 10, 20, or so dollars.

      If I'm going to steal something, its going to be worth it.

    7. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by Darby · · Score: 1

      The only problem I have is when somebody defends something or someone with the "it's legal, so it is okay" argument.

      Well, hopefully for consistency's sake you also have a problem when people use the "it's illegal, so it's not ok" argument as well. I think that one is at least as retarded, usually much more so.

    8. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by robophilosopher · · Score: 0

      Heck, I just started buying a large coffee cup full of half and half at the corner gas station the other day because I figured out it was cheaper than buying a container of half and half. Careful with the expiration date, man :-)

    9. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Yup. Most laws are decent (don't kill somebody for their wallet), but there are quite a few that are either stupid or poorly thought out. I tend to stay inside of the law because of those pesky fines and jailtime things, but I have no problems with some activities. Most of the cops I know would roll their eyes and ignore it too (unless pressed to do something).

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    10. Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. by Darby · · Score: 1

      Well, I hoped for it and I got it :-)
      Thanks. You're probably a real nice person to live around.

  82. Hold the phone... by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

    Wait, let me get this straight...

    This guy has no money, yet he's got enough FedEx packages to make furniture, has a website, and a digital camera....

    ???...

    Okay, first off, furniture just ain't that freaking expensive. No, you may not be able to afford an Itallian leather sofa, but you can get a decent cloth loveseat from IKEA or Target for like $100. Chairs and tables are butt cheap. Furthermore, you can find much cheaper furniture from yard sales and such. WTF do you think college kids do? Do you think they have $1000 sofas in their dorms? Hell no. So honestly, get a freaking life and a clue. He probably spent at least 3 chairs and a table's worth of money on tape!

    Second, if this guy made the furniture so that the FedEx logo shows, and published the pics to a website, FedEx has every right to go after him (by all legal means).

    1. Re:Hold the phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Second, if this guy made the furniture so that the FedEx logo shows, and published the pics to a website, FedEx has every right to go after him (by all legal means).

      Explain your reasoning, please.

      If I post a picture of my home office so that the Dell logo on my computer shows can they sue me ? What if I am not using the Dell as they intended, but have installed linux ? Or if I found it to be unreliable and am using it as a doorstop ? Can Dell "go after" me ?

      What if I walk around in public with an iPod, but don't look Apple-cool ? Say I'm 60 years old, fat, and dressed in a corporate suit. Can Apple sue me for damaging their trademark ?

      Of course I am right and you (and FedEx) are wrong. But what really interests me is how did your brain get into the damaged state it is, to where you would flippantly toss of a statement like that ?

    2. Re:Hold the phone... by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

      ok #1 he could have had the packaging tape and digital camera long before this..The website( i assume with the donations) is self sustaining. Fed Ex boxes are free...nice try there though. No where in the Fedex policy does it say that the boxes are only to be used for shipping so they are screwed on that note..He is not charging people to see the sight, nor is this a business, therefore using the boxes in the way he did is perfectly legal(with the basis that the boxes are used as artwork)The dmca should never have came up with this legal standing as it does not work. Any judge should laugh this out of court, but unfortunately since fed ex is big business it will probably mean the end of the site, with defamation charges against this guy and court costs+lawyers fees+restitution...

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    3. Re:Hold the phone... by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      Not to iterate again, but:

      1. You can have a picture of your computer, but you can't promote it. You cannot print a picture of a Dell in a published work (like a computer magazine) without permission from Dell (ie - every time WIRED magazine wants to focus on a Dell machine, they have to do so under an agreement from Dell). Also, by altering your machine or putting a different OS on it, you have violated the maintenance agreement. They won't "go after" you, but they won't support you anymore. That's the contract you signed when you bought it.

      2. The FedEx logo is a registered trademark of FedEx, with all rights reserved. If FedEx has reserved the right for people to use their logo in "art" (which is what this amounts to, I suppose), then guess what? It may be something little, and usually isn't bait enough for anyone to care, but that is for the company to decide. I can't just get some clay, make a copy of the Lockheed-Martin logo, and stick it up somewhere on a bus-stop or whatever. In the end, FedEx may not have the right to lay claim over the use of their boxes, but they do have the right to yay or nay the use of their logo. The case may turn out to be nothing but a lot of hot air, but that's beside the point.

  83. How USPS protects its materials by unfortunateson · · Score: 1

    We run an e-tail business, and as our products come from our distributors in BIG boxes, and go out to customers usually in little boxes --actually padded envelopes for the majority, it's only the inbetweenies that cause probloems -- having a ready stock of boxes of the right size is a constant problem -- you don't want too big a box, or the mdse rattles around, and you're paying to ship the darn heavier box and packing materials.

    So we were tempted to, on rare occasions, use the Priority Mail boxes, turned inside out. USPS prints their logos all over the 'useless' inside to prevent just this abuse.

    Of course, Viking and other office supply places sell kraft-paper-brown spray paint, ostensibly to hide old shipping labels. Never gone to those lengths, though.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
  84. I for one welcome our FedEx overlords by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    and will use UPS boxes for my furniture in compliance with the FedEx DCMA rights they have expressed.

    [sound of millions of lost customers going down drain over some frickin boxes and an overzealous team of lawyer bots]

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  85. Fedex copyright claims by dgerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to a letter sent by Fedex layers to Ms Granick, from the Cyberlaw clinic Fedex claims copyright infringement because, I quote:

    * "Fedex owns the copyright of its packaging"

    ergo:

    * "Fedex has the exclusive right [...] to create derivative works, to distribute copies to the public by sale [...] rental, lease, or lending and to publicly display its copyrighted works".

    * "By posting photographs of works derived from Fedex packaging materials [...] Mr Avila is inducing, causing or materially contributing to the infringement conduct of others, and could be held liable as a contributory infringement".

    There are other issues, but not related to copyright (trademark, unlawful access to the packaging materials).

    I believe the fedex lawyer has a very weak argument: that the copyright of the design on the box extends to the box as a physical object. This is non-sense. If this was the case, any built product that uses material that has a copyrighted logo printed on it will become a "derivative work". That will mean that we will require a "license" from the material supplier to be able to use it. Non sense

    1. Re:Fedex copyright claims by dogwelder99 · · Score: 1

      * "Fedex owns the copyright of its packaging"

      * "Fedex has the exclusive right [...] to create derivative works, to distribute copies to the public by sale [...] rental, lease, or lending and to publicly display its copyrighted works".


      Oops.. better send a cease-and-desist to every shipping clerk in the country who creates a "derivative work" by sticking an address label on a FedEx box. We need some real DRM here, like building them out of Teflon.

      And TV stations are distributing the FedEx copyrighted logo to millions of IP thieves via commercials... sue those freeloaders! Also, throw in a few thousand lawsuits for people who accidentally leave the FedEx logo showing when tossing the box in a trash bin. We're losing billions here, billions!

    2. Re:Fedex copyright claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dupont is about to make a real killing on Tyvek.

    3. Re:Fedex copyright claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe the fedex lawyer has a very weak argument: that the copyright of the design on the box extends to the box as a physical object. This is non-sense. If this was the case, any built product that uses material that has a copyrighted logo printed on it will become a "derivative work". That will mean that we will require a "license" from the material supplier to be able to use it. Non sense

      Not so fast. He's not using the material for its intended purpose; there would certainly be an implied license for material used in its intended way. He has a desk covered with their logo and he's included their copyright in his domain name.

  86. Publicity by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
    - marketing aphorism

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:Publicity by Rei · · Score: 1

      Leonardo Leonardo: "Kill him!"

      Plug: "Sir, I'm just a publicist."

      Leonardo Leonardo: "Well then, kill him with bad publicity!"

      Plug: (chuckles) "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    2. Re:Publicity by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Really? Thats one of those things people say a lot, but which is clearly not true. I can think of plenty of instances where publicity has been a bad thing.

    3. Re:Publicity by ashot · · Score: 1

      mmm.. I could go for a big mac.

      --
      -ashot
  87. FedExFurniture Pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We had posted about this when the site first went up, and included some pics, here. We also set up a blog for Jose, here.

  88. Well he did backwards engineer it. by kinglink · · Score: 1

    Consider that he reversed the object to the original components, heavy duty cardboard. Then used it for a purpose not specifically stated in the Licensing agreement (sitting on it).

    Well if the MPAA ever had a case, FedEx probably does too.. that's not to say the MPAA had a case though no matter what the courts said.

  89. The Corporation by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 0

    It's looks as if Fed-Ex is hell bent on becoming the poster child for the morally irresponsible corporaton.

    There is an excellent documentary on this very topic of corporate responsibility. It's call The Corporation. Rent it if you can.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  90. Fedex went the wrong way by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

    They could have turned this into an excellent series of comercials.

    Better than GEICO, VW, you name it.

    CLOSE SHOT of RED HAIRED DUDE

    CAMERA PULLS BACK revelaing a room with everything made out of FEDEX BOXES. CAMERA PULLS BACK MORE revealing a FEDEX HOUSE...

    oh well, you get the point

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  91. Slashdot does what lawyers can't. by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Shut down his site. Smooth move.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  92. The real issue at hand by Jinjuku · · Score: 1

    As always, my fellow technologist are not connecting with the realities at hand. Do you think Fed-Ex actually produces all those boxes so you can make furniture? Do you thing Fed-Ex gives two shits that he has TWO apartment rents to pay? Who's fault is that? Plus there are plenty of places to go to get discounted or free furniture (Ever see the 30 Days episode with Morgan Spurlock?). Glad I know what this kid looks like so if he ever applies for development job, we can cross him off the list and save the office supplies from being pillaged. Boys and Girls, it's theft. Taking someone else's property and doing something not intended is indeed theft. Remind me never have any of you over for dinner. Who knows what twisted way you will justify stealing whatever I have.

    1. Re:The real issue at hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking someone else's property is indeed theft. But the "doing what is not intended" has nothing to do with it.

      Secondly, he is not being charged with theft. FedEx could go to the local DA and file charges against him, and then ask that they be dropped if he pays $2/box or whatever. Instead they are claiming DCMA violations. As a person who doesn't use FedEx or their boxes, FedEx is threatening me.

      Thirdly, who cares about the availability of other sources of cheap furniture ? If you cannot afford to get furniture with your morals intact, sit and sleep on the floor. I've done it for years.

      Look, your point that this is a kind of petty theft is true. Kind of like taking an extra pair of the plastic forks at MacDonald's to bring on your next picnic. Or my friend who walks two blocks from work every morning to scarf down free bagels and coffee in a high-class hotel lobby, then tramps his free-loading ass back to work (never brings me any either, the asshole).

      But you can't let some little guy's petty theft distract you from a big corporation (like FedEx) testing out a new legal tool to use to fuck us all.

    2. Re:The real issue at hand by Jinjuku · · Score: 1
      FedEx SHOULD go after him for Theft, and yes,I know that they are not charging him with theft. I would go after him with something more than just petty theft. I am so tired of shit that is blatant stealing and having slashdotters obfuscate it with some thin argument that any prudent on the street person would see as theft.

      Steve Job's reality distortion effect has nothing on the bulk of what the mass of dotters here are capable of. News Flash, FedEx isn't fucking anybody. Don't you dare blame FedEx for this. Blame the moronic cretin. Since that is were the blame belongs. He could have done this and not turned it into a publicity stunt, FedEx would be none the wiser, BUT HE DID. You lay in the bed you make. And Slashdotters as a whole with this and P2P file sharing(pirating) are collectivley and long-term making a VERY uncomfortable bed to sleep in.

      You want to know why MY fair use rights are getting fucked, all /.'s need to do is look in the mirror. Thanks a bunch dudes.

      I know this doesn't quite apply, but Tom Clancy said it best "If you kick a tiger in the balls, be prepared to deal with its teeth"
    3. Re:The real issue at hand by wk633 · · Score: 1

      It would really suck if people had to make sure their personal web sites in .com domains had no textual or pictoral reference to any major corporation.

      Stealing boxes is irrelevent. Putting pictures of FedEx boxes on a web site with 'fedex' in the name is what they're all hot and bothered about.

    4. Re:The real issue at hand by Jinjuku · · Score: 1
      This wasn't a friggin' coke can on a desk... This was an idiot doing idiotic things and the slashdot community getting all huff'd n' puff'd about "the man" comming down on him.

      I am sure that FedEx doesn't want to have to pay a lawyer their fee to write a letter to someone about this, of all things.

      I am probably next to Satan for most Slashdotters because I charge for my software package that I spend untold hours working on 'gasp'.

      Then again, I have nice furniture.

    5. Re:The real issue at hand by wk633 · · Score: 1

      We often say free speech is tested by those who say things we don't agree with. His idiocy should not be the test of whether or not his web site should be removed.

      The fact that FedEx used the DMCA in a trademark dispute is worrisome. Whether or not one is guilty of theft, one should not be convicted of drunk driving for stealing. What concerns me is not so much 'the man' beating up on this one little guy. Sure, maybe he deserves it. I want to know that 'the man' is following the rules, so that they'll at least follow the rules when I do something they don't like.

    6. Re:The real issue at hand by Jinjuku · · Score: 1
      I was never concerned with the DMCA in this, look at Lexmark. I think the forces in play are going to keep it balanced out. I actually have a bigger issue with the moral compass of people that I am likely to come into contact with by virtue of business (software developement).

      The DMCA never came in and robbed me blind and then cooked up some wacky argument to justify it. With FedEx and the DMCA, I could really care less because the whole thing is a joke and will get bounced out of court like it should, I have SOME faith in our system.

  93. also: rtfa by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    it says very clearly that he has a good job as a software developer. he has no money because he just moved cities and is currently paying two rents each month [old and new].

    sum.zero

    1. Re:also: rtfa by calethix · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I saw a tower case in the picture of his desk but I can't get to it now. Surely he could sell one of them. I had the same thoughts when I saw the pictures... looks like he needs to prioritize but I guess if you can build some cool furniture out of free fedex boxes, why bother spending money.

    2. Re:also: rtfa by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      yeah, cuz used computers are worth sooooo much

      the depreciation on PC's is ridiculous, he wouldn't get much from the desktop. laptops otoh hold their value much better

      but sometimes you need to keep things in perspective. sure money might be tight for him now, but his computers are obviously important to him. you can be poor with a few cherished possessions that make you happy, or you can be slightly-less-poor but have nothing at all.

      he can always look at his computer and say "at least i have this, this is my thing. this is my hobby, this is what keeps me sane, this is how i make my living"

      unless you hit that point yourself, you can never truly appreciate his situation

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    3. Re:also: rtfa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he's paying two rents he's a dumbass for not getting out of the old one and moving his furniture to the new place. Besides, he probably spends more on his fucked up freaky hair dye and starbucks than it does to buy cheap furniture at goodwill or something similar to it.

  94. Where's daveschroeder when we need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need someone to tell us how the big friendly corporation is being wronged by the evil little guy! We need to be made to understand that uncontrolled power for big business is good for society. We need to know why people doing anything that corporations don't like is bad for society.

    And we need someone to tie this all in to stem cell research and abortions being evil. Come on, dave, help us out!

  95. FedEx terrified of box cut class action lawsuit by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    I can see why they're terrified -- this guy is bumpin' and grindin' on his FedEx box bed (or something similarly violent in motion but with just his hand) and it breaks. He (and his hand and/or sexual partner -- if they're not one and the same) get cut/injured/etc.

    So -- FedEx sees this guy as possibly using their product in a dangerous manner. They're just trying to stem the tide of a class action lawsuit where every moron who stupidly cuts him or herself on a FedEx box comes after FedEx.

    On a side note -- I thought IKEA was the shittiest furniture you could barely pay for, but this takes the cake, and it's free.

    IronChefMorimoto

  96. A Clear Case by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    This is a clear case of reverse engineering of the boxes. Certainly there's an EULA on them somewhere prohibiting such activities.

    How long before Ford can sue me because their car appears in a picture I've used to promote my kid's carwashing business?

    I sure wish we had courts that would have told FedEx from the beginning that unless he is promoting a non-existent business association with you to his benefit, or your determent -- GO AWAY. YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CASE!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  97. FEDEX TOILET by borschski · · Score: 1

    A buddy of mine went hiking in Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park in Colorado and had to pack *everything* out...even human waste. Being without a job and money to buy the right stuff from his local backpacking outlet, he took along a half dozen FedEx mylar envelopes for taking his obligatory daily dump. They worked great, didn't leak and could be resealed, and easily packed out. Wonder how FedEx would like to be associated with THAT!?! Furniture seems pretty benign.

  98. Both parties are in the wrong here by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

    FedEx is in the wrong for misusing a piece of legislation that was ill-conceibed to begin with. But the website owner is in the wrong for abusing the resources of that company.

    Companies don't make these materials available with the intent of subsidizing the commons; there's an expectation, an honor system if you will, that you'll ask for materials you'll legitimately use with their service. When people abuse the honor system sufficiently, (this is sometimes called stealing) companies will have to lock down or remove easy access entirely. Imagine in the future, wanting to send something through a shipper, and being asked to pack it in the the shipper's office, because they don't let empty boxes out of the office due to abuse. Or perhaps they will require a deposit on the boxes. You can tell they're already close to this point, because they've already got tracking via account of boxes they send "serious" customers. Either eventuality stifles legitimate business, and it's the freeloaders' fault.

    1. Re:Both parties are in the wrong here by Dave21212 · · Score: 1


      True, but these are two types of wrongs - on one hand we have the billion-dollar multi-national corporation FedEx claiming DMCA violations and that various laws have been broken, and on the other you have some guy who LEGALLY requested boxes from FedEx (who then promptly shipped them to him).

      Are you really suggesting that censoring a website, massive fines, and jail time is appropriate for what you described as 'abusing the honor system' by getting some free boxes from FedEx ? Are you also suggesting that FedEx will have to end it's shipping materials program in the havoc that was unleashed by this site ? Or is this a case of trying to justify the FedEx position to look 'fair and balanced' (strike that, 'fair and balanced' is copywrited and Slashdot will have to be sued off the internet now to protect Fox News!)

      --
      "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Both parties are in the wrong here by artifex2004 · · Score: 1
      Are you really suggesting that censoring a website, massive fines, and jail time is appropriate for what you described as 'abusing the honor system' by getting some free boxes from FedEx ?


      Did I say that? No. I don't think you read the first part of my comment?

      Are you also suggesting that FedEx will have to end it's shipping materials program in the havoc that was unleashed by this site ?


      Not just this site, no. Please read my comment again and try to understand that I am talking about the mentality that people have to abuse the trust the shipping companies have had.

      Or is this a case of trying to justify the FedEx position to look 'fair and balanced' (strike that, 'fair and balanced' is copywrited and Slashdot will have to be sued off the internet now to protect Fox News!)


      I'm sorry you feel it necessary to attack me personally. I'm hardly astroturfing here; I don't own stock in any of these companies, nor do I work for them.
  99. Re:Best example Two kind of people in the world. by WarmNoodles · · Score: 1

    Kind 1 are those who cal roll with the punches and
    Kind 2, have a knack for making the worst out of any situation.

    Examples
    Kind 1
    May 13, 2005, 16 current and former law enforcement officers and U.S. soldiers who had accepted more than $222,000 in bribes to help move drugs past checkpoints
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156471,00.html
    All apparently arrested without incident.

    Fed-ex is now in league with the guy last month in Atlanta GA who killed 4 people by exploiting a security flaw in a deputy's pistol holster security containment system.

    At most, he would have done 10 to 180 days on the pending Marijuana charge but he traded the multi day vacation for a death sentence.

    Fed-Ex traded good pr for bad pr.

    --
      What do you call 10,000 lawyers at ...

  100. *Letter*? We don't need no Letter ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Just because some lawyer writes you a letter doesn't mean you have to do anything asked. If that were the case, there would be pure anarchy.

    Besides, I have a patent on using cardboard boxes as a business process to make furniture, and it's clear that FedEx is in violation of my business process patent.

    I demand they start using tin foil for their boxes, as my patent clearly does not include the use of tin foil and other non-cardboard containing shipping materials that may or may not be used in the construction of furniture.

    Party hats are expressly forbidden, however, as a separate patent that I have is for the use of commonly available materials used in shipping to make hats and footwear - so anyone making a tin foil hat is in clear violation of my patent rights and owes me 2 cents per party hat.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  101. It is kinda stupid, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think about it from Fedex's position, you might have a problem on your hands. If everyone starts to copy this guy's idea and start to order boxes for furniture and not their intended purpose, they stand to start losing money on some stupid, pointless, utterly unrelated crap. While I don't think the solution is to sue Mr. Avila, I think they should tighten up their policies on providing the boxes and just do all there is to do at his creation. Laugh.

  102. In a related story by springbox · · Score: 1

    The owner of the site fedexfurniture.com woke up the next morning only to find himself in Albania

  103. Clearly .com... by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    "Avila clearly intended to operate a business from his website because he used the .com domain suffix, the "commercial level domain," rather than .net.' You just can't make this stuff up."

    It's been a LONG time since the .com TLD was exclusively used for U.S. commercial businesses. How many people do you know with theirownname.com who just operate a blog or family connection site? .com receives such a heavy marketing push, it's the first thing that occurs to most web-newb's who want to register a domain name, no matter what their objective.

    So I think there's also grounds for argument here on just how "clear" it is that the guy intends on capitalizing on the FedEx trademark with a commercial venture.

  104. Those aren't your USPS boxes! they're mine ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Shipping supplies from the USPS state very clearly that they're the property of the USPS. The first time you order a shipment of boxes from the USPS, they make you sign something saying that you acknowledge this fact and that those supplies are indeed only for the purpose of sending stuff by means of USPS.

    I had thought Fedex and UPS did the same, but I just examined a couple Fedex medium boxes we had laying around here and they don't say anything of the sort.


    So, if they're in the trash disposal, they're USPS or FedEx property?

    I don't think so ... that's a clear violation of my patent on the business process of dumpster diving for useable objects.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Those aren't your USPS boxes! they're mine ... by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      The agreement thing basically just says that if you order the boxes, you're going to use them for the express purpose of shipping things through Priority Mail. Using them for any other purpose is (i think) considered mail fraud.

      Of course... unless you're ordering ridiculous amounts of boxes all the time, they're never going to know the difference. And maybe even then they still won't. It's not like they send out inspectors to check up on you.

  105. Computer cases from Fed Ex boxes by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    Okay, that's it, I'm going to create a computer case out of fed-ex boxes and post it on my web site!

  106. Judicial Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you have a non-decent judge, well, that's what judicial elections are for."

    Other elections produce plenty of non-decent Congresspersons and Mayors.

  107. Attention UPS by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Attention UPS: You've got the marketing opportunity of the year knocking at your door. All you have to do is open it and not be an @$$hole about this kid using your shipping boxes. Heck, this kid should have had his own art exhibit by now.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  108. Why not consider this as free advertising? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    I mean come on, how does this NOT testify to the quality (and therefore, the durability) of the packing materials?

    How else can you demonstrate how well your package will survive the shipping process, than showing how someone can actuallly use those same packaging materials for furniture?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  109. uh oh... by jcsprstr · · Score: 1

    Well... since his use of a .com means he was obviously intending to sell something... I hope I don't get accused of prostitution with my dot-com address...

  110. Get Off Your Knees by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Troll
    What a load of crock. I work at the same UPS factory as you and it never gets even close to 95 degrees inside.

    Well, maybe you just don'e notice it as much, what with being down on your knees in your manager's air conditioned office...

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  111. Can we all get by Amouth · · Score: 1

    a BIG WTF

    i am lost .. even after reading it.. how does fedx - DCMA - furniture fit into a meaningful train of though

    wait - ahh - shipping digital furniture - so they are sueing becuse of the pic's wait that still doesn't make sence..

    someone remove my brain i think i just forked a few nervs

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  112. DMCA "abuse"? by bani · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "abuse" implies the DMCA wasn't created for this purpose.

    But you can bet it was designed for exactly this purpose, and more. That's why it's so frequently used to beat into submission anyone who is hosting a website that a corporation might find embarassing or offensive.

    1. Re:DMCA "abuse"? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      "Abuse" is precisely what the DMCA was designed for . . .

      FedEx is just using it to beat up on a guy they should be thanking. Sort of the "domestic violence" of copyright abuse.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  113. Trademark? by Stevix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly FedEx shipping co. only has 'FedEx' and the 'FedEx' logo trademarked as it applies to shipping containers, and within the realm of package delivery. As we can clearly see, Jose is using the term FedEx (displayed prominently on his work), in reference to a Furniture line, which FedEx shipping co. has no trademark rights within. I move for dismissal :)

  114. DRM! by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1

    They should have used DRM!

    I see FedEx rushing to patent DRM-encumbered boxes that allow themselves to be used for package shipping only and self-destruct when used to build furniture.

    Expect boxes to report potential terrorists to gov't in the nearest future.

    --
    Rediculous is ridiculous!
  115. COCKROACH EGGS IN BEER BOXES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use em, that's what I've heard. They can be attracted to a box that had beer spilled in it, and contaminate a bunch of other ones by laying eggs. You snag the free boxes, they hatch in your new place.

  116. If Fedex had a sense of humor by pbug · · Score: 1

    They could have turned this into a great commerial. Some guy that only orders stuff from companies that ship with fedex so he can get the boxes to make furniture or something to that effect. Now they are looking like some company who just want to pick on the little guy.

  117. The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by doublem · · Score: 2

    Your Ford comparison makes no reference to the fact that every person who attempts to produce their own FedEx furniture will be costing FedEx a few hundred dollars.

    The boxes themselves aren't free. FedEx pays for them.

    Shipping the boxes to the furniture maker isn't free. FedEx delivers them. Yes, it's not terribly expensive for FedEx, as they are already paying for tie delivery person, and the boxes are probably purchased at nice bulk discounts, but the fact remains that FedEx stands to lose a lot of cash in all of this.

    Their methods of handling this are reprehensible. I won't argue that.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're retarded .. read the fucking suit. idiot.

    2. Re:The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by doublem · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the poor AC. Too dumb to make any attempt to try and understand what might motivate someone to do something.

      "The suit doesn't explicitly state that it's because of the cost of free boxes, so they can't be related."

      Please, apply your clearly considerable logic skills to the SCO case. That should be entertaining.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    3. Re:The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by schon · · Score: 1

      The boxes themselves aren't free. FedEx pays for them [...] FedEx stands to lose a lot of cash in all of this

      Then FedEx shoudn't be giving them away now, should they?

      Obviously FedEx sees a benefit in giving the boxes away (otherwise they wouldn't do it.) If the cost outweighed the benefit, they'd stop doing it.

      You wanna give something away? Fine. Just don't play the sore loser if someone takes you up on it.

    4. Re:The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Are you saying he's lifting the boxes from a FedEx agent? That's a whole different ball of yarn. It would not pass the test of what a reasonable person believes is right.

      If I made a desk out of all the Amazon.com boxes I've received in the last year, or if I was taking the boxes from the recycle bin at my office, that would be one thing (reasonable). If I was taking fresh boxes from the FedEx agent, that's no longer reasonable, and I would not expect my position to prevail against a demand to cease.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by doublem · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If he's using the FedEx agent to get his boxes, which is what I've been lead to believe he's doing, then in many ways he's clearly in the wrong.

      There's also the question of if the site encourages people to use the FedEx Agent to get free boxes for furniture construction.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    6. Re:The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I finally got around to reading the C&D letter.
      Yeah, I wouldn't try to defend myself against this, because, I'd have sense enough to know that ordering all those boxes from FedEx in order to use them for something besides FedEx shipping was *wrong*, and that the company's claim that it was in violation of an agreement that we had made would have a substantial amount of merit.

      Like I said, it's not hard to defend yourself when you're right. But once you step into the area where you're not exactly innocent, but you still want some satisfaction, that's another ballgame -- one that I would not try to play.

      I had originally believed that the furniture was being made from boxes the guy was collecting and recycling. If that were the case, then the whole argument would be about the fedexfurniture.com domain name -- a plain, simple domain name dispute.

      As it stands, he is in a very weak bargaining position over the domain name dispute, due to his idiotic and abusive method of acquiring boxes. He's doing damage to society by driving up the cost of using FedEx, however small his impact may be.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  118. If I was UPS... by nigham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd give him our boxes, ask him to build furniture out of those, host his website and assign him a lawyer.

    I think the goodwill I'd get would be worth many times the cost I'd incur.

    --
    I don't want to read /. I want to go home and re-think my life.
    1. Re:If I was UPS... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Mod parent +6 Profit!

  119. Re: Commercial = .net by legirons · · Score: 1

    "Avila clearly intended to operate a business from his website because he used the .com domain suffix, the "commercial level domain," rather than .net.'"

    Wouldn't the ".net" domain indicate that he planned to start an internet service provider?

    He's not an ISP, and he's not a school, and he's not an organisation, and he's not the government, and he's not a country. ".com" it is then...

  120. Slashdot.org by cparisi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess that makes slashdot.org a "non-profit" organization...

  121. while tenuous by XO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...they are absolutely right on one thing. .com is for commercial entities. If you aren't commercial, you should be denied .com. If you aren't a non-profit, you should be denied .org. If you aren't an ISP or other infrastructure provider, you should be denied a .net.

    That's the way it once was, and that's the way it should be. The way it is now, there's no difference except that people prefer .com because that's what people remember the most.

    Bring sanity back to DNS.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    1. Re:while tenuous by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      And if you're not an educational institution, you should be denied ".edu". But I think that one is still in force. So where should I put my personal website?

    2. Re:while tenuous by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      So where should I put my personal website?,/i> .name ?

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    3. Re:while tenuous by zerOnIne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, .net was originally for routers, not ISPs.

      furthermore, such a strict categorization makes for some interesting questions as to where things ought to go. for example, let's say i've got a band that i don't make any money off of (and is therefore not a commercial entity), but is certainly not a "non-profit organization" in the traditional connotation.

      there are thousands more examples of cases that don't quite fit into the simple categorizations that were first envisioned with the TLDs. people have adapted their usage to the technological constraints by pushing the boundaries of what TLDs are used for which purposes.

      --
      09
    4. Re:while tenuous by bartjan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way it originally was is that .com meant computer, .net network and .org organization. I have no idea who started this silly idea of using .com for commercial entities.

    5. Re:while tenuous by xnderxnder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If you aren't commercial, you should be denied .com. If you aren't a non-profit, you should be denied .org. If you aren't an ISP or other infrastructure provider, you should be denied a .net."

      And while you're at it, presuming you're an american, why not use your darned country TLD.. .com is a global namespace, no? .. sanity indeed

      --
      hooked up funny
    6. Re:while tenuous by XO · · Score: 1

      bzzt. Bzzt. Bzzt.

      When I started in 1988, or so, there were no .com's. .com came into existence shortly before the commercial ban on Internet traffic was removed.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    7. Re:while tenuous by XO · · Score: 1

      There should be more TLD's. There should've been more TLD's.

      And someone asked about using non-global addresses.. No, the Network is global. There shouldn't BE country coded addresses.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    8. Re:while tenuous by nagora · · Score: 1
      Bring sanity back to DNS.

      One big step down that road would be to close the generics like .com, .org, .biz etc to new registrations and make the USA use .us sub-domains. Having the whole world fighting to get into the same namespace is moronic.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    9. Re:while tenuous by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Because nobody's bothered to set it up correctly.

      I tried to buy a .com.us, .co.us, or geo-TLD .fl.us.

      But they don't exist to register! They do *exist* as school districts tend to get (county).k12.(state).us, reasoning that .state.us has a dns server somewhere, but you can't buy them.

      I'd kill for a domain name like kth.fl.us for my company, but there's nobody to sell it to me.

  122. MOD UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn. That explains the state of my last NewEgg delivery.

  123. Your thinking is wrong by RalphLeon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I saw this quite a while ago on treehugger.com check out http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/fedex_furn iture.php

    This guy did not "take new" fedex boxes from fedex. He used previously discarded boxes. On other-words ultra-minimal impact on the environment.

    For more info: http://freegan.info/

  124. U-Haul boxes are actually quite inexpensive. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

    16"x12"x12" "small" (book) boxes are only $25.50 for a 15-pack ($1.70 apiece), which admittedly isn't as cheap as places like U-Line, but I've gotten three moves out of some of mine. :-)

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  125. .com domains by Orkie · · Score: 1

    Don't they cost the same as .net anyway? Surely it is better to use .com for any site if you can as it is most commonly used so people are more likely to remember it!

    1. Re:.com domains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      .com domains were established for commercial enterprises. I think it's perfectly reasonable to postulate that a web site in the .com domain is commercial! What's so outrageous about that? The police department of a town near me has a web site in the .com domain. http://harborpd.com/ . Since the town was established and exists primarily as a speed trap, it seems perfectly reasonable that they advertise themselves as a for-profit organization. ;-)

  126. Two Weeks ago? by kwieland+in+stl · · Score: 2, Informative

    Written on the blog, dated July 22nd.

    "Over two weeks ago, FedEx improperly used the DMCA notice and take-down provisions to get the website at www.fedexfurniture.com taken offline. The company claimed trademark infringement and conversion, neither of which allow it to take advantage of the powerful remedy provided under the DMCA."... http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

  127. Trademarks by ces · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmmm ... I'm guessing that FedEx mostly has a problem with his domain "fedexfurniture.com".

    If they get pushy (such as threatening to sue) I'd offer to change the domain name to something like "shippingboxfurniture" and otherwise tell them to go piss up a rope.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  128. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by shotfeel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I don't care what agreement the shipper & shipping company may have, if its a box that's shipped to me, I consider it my property.

    Because if they do think they still own the box after the delivery has been made, they'd better get over here and pick them up or I'm sending them the bill for expenses and labor used to properly dispose of their boxes.

    Note I am talking about boxes that have been used for shipping something, not empty boxes the shipping company may have provided with the understanding that they be used in doing business with them. Its not entirely clear to me how he got his boxes.

  129. Great boxes by uberdave · · Score: 1

    I used to work for a printing firm. They would get developer chemicals in jugs, much like windshield washer fluid jugs. The jugs came in cardboard boxes. The cardboard was double thick, and the boxes had handle cutouts. Beautiful for moving.

  130. This is a dupe I know it is... by martin_b1sh0p · · Score: 1

    I can't find it but I read about this on Slashdot a LONG LONG time ago (i.e. months ago). I wish I could find the article to prove it (I'm being serious by the way).

    1. Re:This is a dupe I know it is... by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      So? Now that there is a post on this subject of dupes I will reply but why do you feel the need to post that it is a dupe? Are you keeping a tally or something?

      I see below the submit button there is an section titled "Important Stuff" and the first line in the section says "Please try to keep posts on topic."

      As for the story... well... like the poster said, you just can't make this stuff up. This is pretty sad.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  131. Yes, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it run Linux?

  132. Notice and takedown procedure by tepples · · Score: 1

    How in heck could the DMCA even be applicable here?

    The standard notice-and-takedown procedure that limits a web host's liability was enacted as a rider to the DMCA.

  133. RedGreen Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the skits on RedGreen show where he made furniture from milk crates.

    1. Re:RedGreen Show by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "Reminds me of the skits on RedGreen show where he made furniture from milk crates."

      Milk crates are some of the sturdiest containers you could ask for. They are virtually indestructible, a convenient size, they stand up to the sun, and they are not damaged by water. The only problem with them, is you can't buy them! Similarly sized containers that are sold in stores are nowhere near as rugged as milk crates.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  134. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by Chainsaw76 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actualy, he says he ordered 300 boxes, because he ships frequently. And that his furniture was built from those boxes, and that if he needed a box for shipping he would take one out of his furniture to do it.

    -Jason

  135. How long until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...someone (hopefully Mr. FedEx furniture) grabs the domain name boycotfedex.com?

  136. bachelorpad by beczka2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what the ladies think of his bed :)

    1. Re:bachelorpad by e_armadillo · · Score: 0

      If they can deal with the pink hair, I don't think the bed should be a problem . . .

  137. Re: Commercial = .net by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Yep, .com actually means 'common', not commercial. If you wanted a company address, you'd use .co.us instead. (just like all other outside-the-usa companies do, eg. .co.uk for a uk company.)

    Its just that people *think* .com means a USA company because everyone uses it for that.

  138. FedExEd had this problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A FedEx employee named Ed had this problem a few years back. His old site (fedexed.net) was taken down per company request; he was posting Opie & Anthony bits (adult humor radio) so one would reasonably side with the company not wanting to support that. His new site is oavirus.com.

  139. U-Haul sucks, use Budget instead by SoCalChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Next time, try Budget Truck Rental. Their trucks are far nicer than U-Hauls. They try to keep the trucks in their fleet no older than 4 years.

    I'm looking to move to Montana in a few months, from the Los Angeles area. The one way truck rental from U-Haul was over $5,000 for a 24' truck. The slightly larger truck that Budget offers was a little over half that price. For under $3,000, I could get it will all the moving supplies I need, and an auto trailer so my wife doesn't have to drive behind me.

    Not to mention that the customer service at U-Haul sucks. I've never been in there, and not have to wait nearly an hour for the 2-3 people in front of me to be taken care of before they even start renting me something. When I've rented from Budget in the past, I was completely done, and out of there within half an hour.

    1. Re:U-Haul sucks, use Budget instead by everdave · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that in most every case, Budget is really winning this contest. New trucks (I can tell you Uhaul horror stories about 30 year old trucks with 350k miles, given to me for a 1000 mile move), generally cleaner, nicer offices and so far friendlier staff. Oh, and in almost every case they are cheaper. Kudos to budget.

      --
      Elliott Smith Tribute CD available now on Double D Records! Visit www.doubledrecords.com to order.
    2. Re:U-Haul sucks, use Budget instead by ces · · Score: 1

      For moves far enough to do a 'one-way' truck rental it makes sense to just hire a moving company to move your stuff.

      For that matter if your time is worth anything and you have heavy boxes or bulky furniture to move, especially if you need to negotiate stairs, a moving company can be the way to go even for in-town moves. Plus they will deal with storing your stuff for a day or two if you get into the problem of having to be out on the last day of the month but you don't get the keys to the new place until the first or even the fifth.

      The only thing you still have to do is pack and label everything on one end and unpack it on the other. Well cleaning too, but you can hire a cleaning service for that if you are especially lazy/busy.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  140. Accounts are free... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they will hit your CC as a test though, but it gets refunded. There are limits to what you can order (they'll cut you off eventually unless you're a big shipper), but they're pretty loose with supplies.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  141. FedEx Strategy by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    1. Build global corporate empire
    2. Drop abusive DMCA complaint on some hapless schmuck and embarrass yourself in front of millions of potential customers
    3. Profit!!!
    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  142. Re: Hire him? by Wescotte · · Score: 1

    Are you nuts?! If you hire somebody you PAY THEM! If you sue, they PAY YOU!

  143. Grow up by frovingslosh · · Score: 1, Informative
    And, since they are a branch of the federal government, it's a federal offense to violate those terms.

    I'm not even going to bother with the fact that the USPS has been spun off and independent for years, but lets go right to the federal offense part. I'm not quite sure what you think you mean by "offense", but if you mean federal crime, that is dead wrong. Congress passes the laws that spell out federal crimes, some low level clerk writing stuff on boxes does not define laws. Maybe there is such an insane law, but without actual reference to it I'll assume there is not and live without fear of discarding a USPS shipping envelope unused.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Grow up by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      When I read your post, the image of a couple of gay guys imitating police sirens, screaming "Grammar Police!!!! Pull Over!!!" comes to mind.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    2. Re:Grow up by timmy+the+large · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The USPS is owned wholey owned by the US goverment. Therefore anyting that the USPS owns is goverment property. Since the USPS owns the boxes, misuse of said boxes is a misuse of goverment property and that my friend is illegal. The USPS does not need to be a branch of the goverment to make misuse of its goods a federal crime. PS - If you ever get the urge to rob the postman that is also a federal offense.

    3. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

      NOT independent.. semi..

      http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpostalservice.htm

    4. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute. I'm F-ing offended here. Are you saying that straight guys cant rite gude inglish?

    5. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      f*ck you mods for thinking the parent was 'informative'.

      1) Our government has 3 branches, the post office is not one of them, however it is part of one of them.

      2) Destruction of and misuse of federal government property, may be the offenses you are looking for. Oh and BTW, your mailbox is not yours either, the MAN owns it.

    6. Re:Grow up by westlake · · Score: 1
      Maybe there is such an insane law, but without actual reference to it I'll assume there is not and live without fear of discarding a USPS shipping envelope unused

      http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/25/TampaBay/Prized_ for_portabilit.shtml" a>Prized for portability -- possessed illegally"

    7. Re:Grow up by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Congress passes the laws that spell out federal crimes, some low level clerk writing stuff on boxes does not define laws.

      Time spent in the mail room can be instructive:

      Prized for portability -- possessed illegally

    8. Re:Grow up by Alcilbiades · · Score: 1

      If it says fedral offense. It means it falls under FEDERAL jurisdiction. AKA illegal and able to be prosecuted by the DoJ. And yes the USPS is still a part of the US Govt even if it was "spun-off" their checks still come from the fedral government. Postmaster Generals are still chosen by the govt, stamp prices are still approved by congress.

      So, lets be clear a clerk or marketing person cant arbitrarily write "mis-use of this box is a federal offense" on a box. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo envolved. Most organizations are smart enough to pass their stuff by legal before showing it to the world.

    9. Re:Grow up by Devistater · · Score: 1

      Its a federal offense to tamper with the mail. Thats probably what they'd say... somehow.

    10. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't matter that it is a Federal offense, since he or she would shoot you on site!

    11. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are spun off and independent from the govt. then why do all postal workers have government health insurance??? No insurance agency even bothers selling postal workers health insurance. Also any abuse of the usps is a federal crime, if you think I am wrong, go steal your neighbors package for me.

    12. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "go steal your neighbors package for me"

      you love the cock

    13. Re:Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ship your contraband across state lines and it's a federal offense.

    14. Re: Grow Up by crimson30 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Congress passes the laws that spell out federal crimes, some low level clerk writing stuff on boxes does not define laws. Maybe there is such an insane law, but without actual reference to it I'll assume there is not and live without fear of discarding a USPS shipping envelope unused.

      To specifically address this, here's a quote from "American Government and Politics Today" (published by Thomas/Wadsworth), under the Bureaucracy chapter (which is where the USPS falls... directly under the executive branch which is supposed to carry out laws passed by Congress):
      "Because Congress is unable to oversee the day-to-day administration of its programs, it must delegate certain powers to administrative agencies. Congress delegates the power to implement legislation to agencies through what is called enabling legislation. For example, the Federal Trade Commission was created by the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Equal Opportunity Commission was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The enabling legislation generally specifies the name, purpose, composition, functions and powers of the agency.

      In theory, the agencies should put into effect laws passed by Congress. Laws are often drafted in such vague and general terms, however, that they provide little guidance to agency administrators as to how the laws should be implemented. This means that the agencies themselves must decide how best to carry out the wishes of Congress.

      The discretion given to administrative agencies is not accidental. Congress has long realized that it lacks the technical expertise and the resources to monitor the implementation of its laws. Hence, the administrative agency is created to fill the gaps. The gap-filling role requires tha agency to formulate administrative rules (regulations) to put flesh on the bones of law. But it also forces the agency itself to become an unelected policymaker."

      If mail theft, mail fruad and tampering with mailboxes can be federal offenses, then so could using USPS packaging for something other than its intended purpose.
    15. Re:Grow up by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Oh and BTW, your mailbox is not yours either,

      Um, considering what I paid for it, my mailbox bloody well better be mine.

      There are laws restricting the *use* of mailboxes to USPS purposes only. And if you take a bat to your neighbor's mailbox, the feds *could* make a case of it (they don't, they leave that up to local enforcement). However, If I want to smash my own box up with a sledgehammer, or fill it with cement, that's my business, though my mail carrier probably won't leave me my mail if I do...

    16. Re:Grow up by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      f*ck you mods for thinking the parent was 'informative'. 1) Our government has 3 branches, the post office is not one of them, however it is part of one of them.

      Nitpicking motherfucker, you need to chill. Yeah, the word "branch" is a malapropism, but his obvious intent in using the word was to convey the notion that the USPS is a part of the federal government. In that regard he's absolutely goddamn right. Jackass ACs, man....

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    17. Re:Grow up by atayarani · · Score: 1

      transporting contraband across state lines in any form is a federal offense. In this case, it's not about the USPS, but because at least two states would have jurisdiction over your case. The one you started in and the one you ended up in. IIRC, there can't be two trials for the same crime, even if it's under separate jurisdictions. Therefore, it becomes a federal case, so that states don't argue about who gets to try the alleged perp.

  144. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by pergamon · · Score: 1

    Oh absolutely. If they're used boxes, I'm pretty sure they're considered fair game. At least a reasonable person would think so.

  145. If he had no money before this article was posted by fireklar · · Score: 1

    Then, after bandwidth fees, he will have negative money.

  146. What Slashdotting? by alienfluid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about you guys but I don't think the website is showing any signs of being Slashdotted. It's fast and zippy even after over 300 comments - must be heck of a server.

    1. Re:What Slashdotting? by e40 · · Score: 1

      Not anymore... appears (mostly) toast now.

  147. Hrmm by mar1no · · Score: 1

    Well thanks to the Slashdot community, we've effectively destroyed FedEx's evidence!

    --
    "you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
  148. Applicability? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    I like Tepples's answer. Also they seem to have mentioned the terms of use of the Fed Ex website. Maybe since he ordered boxes through the website, they are saying he violated the terms of use since they weren't for shipping.

  149. Re:COCKROACH EGGS IN BEER BOXES by PretzelWagon · · Score: 1

    So much for the other half of my sandwich.

  150. POOF! by Icephreak1 · · Score: 1

    Gosh forbid he falls asleep smoking.

    - IP

  151. Oh, if I were UPS right now.. by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd pay this guy to replace all his furniture with UPS boxes and come out looking like a hero!

    Oh yeah, I should go into PR!

    1. Re:Oh, if I were UPS right now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MegaXYZ corp probably won't want to get involved in this kind of thing

      Why not? Its cheap publicity, practically free from UPS's perspective.

      Hell, if I were FedEx, I would have used his site to advantage rather than loosing the legal department on him. There are a myriad of marketing campaigns that could be launched off of this guys work. All of which would resonate with some slice of FedEx's customer base.

      Since FedEx would rather squash the guy with their legal muscle, someone else like UPS, or DHL could definitely spin this in their favor.

      MegaXYZ corp is more likely to have a Marketing Department that could jump on this than is Joe's corner store.

  152. Wired.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Wired.com have his permission to reprint the photos? Hmmmmm?

  153. package store? I thought this was /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we moved back in December and I did it all with Dell 1750 and HP DL145 boxes from work (which we have dozens of). let me assure you those suckers can take a LOT of weight.

    that might be a good /. poll:

    which vendor makes the best moving boxes (IBM, Dell, HP, etc.)...

  154. Idiot by sheldon · · Score: 1

    Let me see... He has no money, but he apparently has enough for an internet connection, a domain name registration, and some shoddy hosting service.

    At one time in college my furniture consisted of:
    A folding table I bought at Wal-Mart for $25
    A folding chair I bought at Wal-Mart for $10
    (That served as my kitchen table, and my computer table)

    For a bed, I had an old army cot that I got for free, and a sleeping bag.

    So yeah, I'm really buying the whole story of using FedEx boxes cause he had no money.

    More likely he did it because he thought it was cute. Like how we used to make chairs out of cases of empty beer bottles.

    Whatever, he would not have had a problem if he simply talked about it on a blog, and posted a few pictures. But instead he went out and registered 'fedexfurniture.com' and is amazed that FedEx has a problem with that.

    1. Re:Idiot by DevNova · · Score: 1

      I think he just covered his real furniture in the boxes. Granted, FedEx slipcovers are not nearly as cool as FedEx furniture.

  155. com net org - where's my free shipping? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1


    So this guy is engaged in a commercial enterprise because he's using a .com domain for his site.

    I went to fedex.org and up came the fedex website! Clearly fedex is not a commercial operation. I'm waiting to hear back from them on how to get my free or reduced-price shipping. By interacting with fedex.org I shouldn't have to pay the same price those crooks at fedex.com charge.

  156. EULAs won't be far behind... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    ... on every FedEx Box, sugar packet and fast food ketchup dispenser.

    It's gonna be a bitch to put a EULA on each toothpick.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  157. A better use of his efforts? by Cobblepop · · Score: 1

    Think if he built a server out of FedEx boxes it could withstand the /. crowd?

  158. He used FedEx.com by Tetravus · · Score: 1

    and it has an EULA that they claim he violated.
    The article fails to make this clear, and I didn't see anything about it on his site before it went down.

    The DMCA is being invoked solely because of his use of FedEx.com to order boxes that he didn't intend to use for shipping.

  159. TLD misuse by the0ther · · Score: 2, Informative

    If FedEx wants to start bitching about the way people use a TLD to denote whether or not they're a commercial entity, check out http://www.orangebowl.org/. If the Orange Bowl is a non-commercial event somebody should probably get back those "gift" SUVs the colleges are giving out to their star ball-players.

    1. Re:TLD misuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      More on topic :

      http://www.fedex.org/

      Talk about the pot calling the . . .

  160. Lets take a look at Fed Ex by Dirty+Mike+of+Ca · · Score: 1

    I think the United States government should sue them for the use of federal in their name. They are not a governmental entity, yet their name implies they are one moreso that the United States Postal Service's moniker Priority Mail. I think their name is a misleading statement and violation of the DMCA.

  161. If I was UPS.... by cyberassasin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would offer to help him and send him all of the packaging materials he needs..... You couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

    New UPS Commercial: "What can Brown do for you? Help you stick it to FedEx and furnish your apartment...."

    --
    Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
  162. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  163. Ethics and friendliness, JabberWokky style by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Whoa, there, keep your vorpal blade in its scabbard, big fellah.

    The ethics of creating a parody work of art that pretty clearly digs some ground about consumer culture and disposability are not exactly one-sided slam dunks for the "thou shalt not" morality you're peddling. I understand: in terms of a Kantian categorical imperative, we couldn't argue that everyone should take advantage of the free boxes to do this. On the other hand, we could argue that everyone could exercise the kind of independent thought and artistic impulse this person did.

    As far as the inflated prices of business for everyone else: c'mon, FedEx has a business model that counts on massive waste of the free boxes. If that really added anything of consequence to their bottom line, that wouldn't be their M.O., would it? Isn't this sort of a parable about an individual response to market dynamics that, when they trickle down to the individual level, can't be perceived as anything but deeply irrational? (And isn't the lawsuit about the irrational corporate response to that?)

    As far as your "friendly" quality goes, hey, I suggest you read your post again. Tell me who's talking (quite gratuitously, in a sort of 'public' setting) about colonectomies. "Piss poor example of humanity"? Does this seem like an incredibly harsh and self-righteous response from someone who's instructing me about friendliness?

    Rest awhile by the tum tum tree in thought, is my advice...

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Ethics and friendliness, JabberWokky style by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Actually, I was referring to the fellow who orders UPS boxes and then moves with them. Check the top of the thread. The site has been down, so I can't comment directly on the FedEx fellow. I'm guessing it's a stupid lawsuit over some art, but I'll reserve judgement until I see the site.

      Yep, I'm pretty direct online. This is a forum of ideas and I tend to take positions with a firmness that strikes some as grating. I also yield to the occasional person who presents a better position. Speaking of which... reading back, you're right: I was likely too harsh. Good position. ;)

      That said, this isn't a restaurant, and what is seen as daily fare here would be totally out of bounds at, say, the corner diner. It's hard to argue that colonectomy talk is out of bounds in a forum that helped popularize goatse.cx. On the other hand, I hope never to see the fellow from *that* photo at a restaurant. At least not striking that particular pose next to my table.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:Ethics and friendliness, JabberWokky style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is seen as daily fare here would be totally out of bounds at, say, the corner diner.

      I submit that you have never lived near a college campus. Probably because you are still in high school.

      (I surmised this from your response to the GP, which was heavy on self-explanation and light on justification, as though written by someone who had not yet learned to formulate complex arguments or feels uneasy reflecting upon himself. As well, your original comment was highly personal and absolutist, leading me to believe that you are both insecure and arrogant about how much you know. The shallow breadth of your values intimates to me that you have lived life thus far in a secure environment, most probably suburbia. Also, the name Evan became popular around 18-20 years ago.)

      If I am incorrect in my analysis, may I suggest that you grow up a bit?

  164. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  165. Oh snap! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    FedEx is clearly a not for profit organization because they have fedex.org!

    Hey, FedEx, /cry about it.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  166. W-i-i-i-lson!!! by carrier+lost · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't make a raft out of 'em, either, I'll bet.

    MjM

    1. Re:W-i-i-i-lson!!! by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for mod points. Hahaha.

      I wonder if the Reynolds Wrap people would sue you under the DMCA for misuse of their packaging material?

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  167. I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I KNEW IT I KNEW IT I KNEW IT I KNEW IT. As soon as I saw that post I knew there was going to be legal action. &@$#$!! Fed Ex

  168. YIKES!!! by Rekrapt · · Score: 1

    They were obviously shocked by his disgustingly pink hair.

    1. Re:YIKES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're one to talk you pug ugly, fat ass, son of a bitch.

  169. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by shotfeel · · Score: 1

    Thanks. That at least makes a little sense. Doesn't explain why they're using the DMCA, but does explain why they might have issues with his box use.

  170. I Call Shenanigans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    The first time you order a shipment of boxes from the USPS, they make you sign something saying that you acknowledge...that those supplies are indeed only for the purpose of sending stuff by means of USPS.
    That simply isn't true. The US Postal Service has offered free boxes to eBay sellers for years, and I have ordered them regularly. There is no such agreement.

    The only catch is that the boxes have Priority Mail designs on their exterior. This means that, if you ship those boxes via the Postal Service, you have to pay the Priority Mail rate -- as opposed to cheaper rates like First Class (depending on weight) or Media Mail. However, you can easily evade this design with a few moments' patience and some duct tape: Simply tape up the box so that no design is visible.

    Having said all that, I have ordered these boxes specifically to pack items when moving out of an apartment. There isn't any agreement or contract such as the parent describes.

    1. Re:I Call Shenanigans. by hesiod · · Score: 2, Informative

      > you can easily evade this design with a few moments' patience and some duct tape: Simply tape up the box so that no design is visible.

      Or if you get the ones that you have to fold/assemble yourself, just make them inside-out, giving you a nice plain brown or white box.

    2. Re:I Call Shenanigans. by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      > Only on ecatch to that now... the new boxes (about 4-6 months ago) also have 'USPS' in large print on the inside on em' most likely for recognition by whoomever.

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
  171. That's a whole lot of tape by CamelToes · · Score: 1

    Just goes to show you how valuable Duct Tape is ... This should be a strong promotion for both FedEx AND Scotch Tape.

    1. Re:That's a whole lot of tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't buy any tape! He used shipping labels!

  172. Box use issues by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    They could---I don't know!---try not sending him any more boxes!!!111eleventyone

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Box use issues by Chainsaw76 · · Score: 1

      Apparently they have:
      "This is a 9.5 foot couch. It is not 100% complete yet due to how difficult it is to get fedex to deliver to my house these days."

      -Jason

  173. slashdot helping out by johnty · · Score: 1

    seems like slashdot is helping fedex take out this guy's online operations... not surprisingly.

    --
    I am unique, just like you, and you, and you...
  174. Re: Commercial = .net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well looky here... who has fedex.net registered? Why... it's FedEx! What a surprise. They must not be a company because they have a .net domain name registered...

  175. one down, several by houghi · · Score: 1

    thousand sites that have picturs of FedEx stuff to go: http://tinyurl.com/8lqrw

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  176. Missing data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the wired article and saw the site before it was slashdotted.

    The guy had the site up in June, and FedEx sent him a threatening letter.

    He shut it down and consulted a lawyer, who basically said (I'm paraphrasing here, I read it before lunch) "They're full of shit."

    The guy then put the site back up and Wired linked. Then /. linked and FedEx got what they wanted... bad publicity!

  177. Slashdotting and mirrors by fireheadca · · Score: 1

    Now that his site is down, we resort to mirrors
    perhaps slashdot could host some of the
    mirrors and prevent this from happening?

    I hope he doesn't pay by the gb :O

  178. RTFA by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    He's a software developer who makes good money, but recently moved and is temporarily paying two rents.

    I have enough trouble furnishing my place with the one mortgage.

  179. dmca by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    Can't you get in big trouble for improperly filing a dmca takedown notice? Its not like what they are claiming is even covered by the dmca, so they can't pretend they didn't know it was harassment.

  180. The more I see ithis law get invoked like this... by cmdrwhitewolf · · Score: 1

    The more I begin to think that DMCA actually stands for Double Moron Copycat Accelerant. I can just see Bernie Ebbers hawking it over the local Corporate Value Network, "DMCA is for those who don't think their getting enough media attention to set themselves on fire with! Do it today!"

    --
    [Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
  181. Re:COCKROACH EGGS IN BEER BOXES by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    While offtopic, it's fun to talk about...

    When I worked at Dell in the safety investigation labs, I would often inspect failed PCs via unusual means. Most of the time, it's because of smoke or "pop" sounds from a failed power supply (bad capacitor sounds like a fire cracker). At any rate, about 1/10 of those PCs failed due to ROACHS!!! That's right, roaches are attracted to the ionized air created by the power supply. They often find them steril and clean enough to lay eggs in. By the time we get those PCs, they eggs have already hatched.

    Let me tell you something... I ALWAYS open the side case cover very very carefully. You never know when a swarm of 20+ roaches come crawling out the moment they see some light.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  182. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

    Is it because he's using FedEx images on his website?

    Not that I'm defending FedEx but I wonder if that is the angle they are using.

    --
    500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
  183. That's nothing... by stanleypane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to manage a distribution warehouse, so I was lucky enough to visit the local UPS operation here in town. Each day, we fill a feeder truck with anywhere from 300-500 packages on average. These feeder trucks are then picked up every day and driven back to our local UPS facility. Once the feeder arrives at UPS, the entire trailer is tipped at about a 30 angle and all of the packages on top literally come tumbling out of the truck onto a sort station at the docks.

    It is not a delicate process at all. And when a couple hundred of your packages all start toppling over each other, it is very scary indeed. I'd rather them play football with the packages.

  184. fedex.org by reynhout · · Score: 1

    fedex.org must be a non-profit as well.

    Their taxes must be awfully complicated, running parallel businesses with different regulatory compliances.

    I think the days are over when big companies with lots of cash can pretend to be wholly ignorant of things in the computer world, hoping the judge will be too. It's too easy to find expert witnesses that make you look like idiots and/or liars. Time for a policy change, methinks.

    You have to wonder about a profession that encourages its practitioners to feign ignorance.

  185. Re: Commercial = .net by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Would you care to cite your sources for that piece of info? Every place I've ever read has said that .com stands for "commercial", although there is no requirement that one have a commercial venture in order to register a .com domain.

  186. Switch to UPS by sicking · · Score: 1

    The best way to deal with this is to call UPS (or DHL or whathaveyou) and ask if they want to sponsor a new set of furniture. Then put a big blurb at the top of the site about how FedEx sucks but that DHL was happy to sponsor the project.

    I wouldn't be surpriced if UPS would even make commersials with this guy to show hwo good quality their packaging has.

    --
    Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
    1. Re:Switch to UPS by sicking · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surpriced if UPS would even make commersials with this guy to show hwo good quality their packaging has.

      My spelling, though, is of pretty low quality. : )

      --
      Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
  187. Dear FedEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UPS will enjoy my revenue from now on. Thanks for being a dick.

  188. It's simple by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Since a cardboard box isn't Digital, and he's not Copying anything, how is DMCA applicable?

    Learn the English language. Digital is an adjective modifying millenium (what millenium? the digital one).

    And copyright doesn't have to have anything to do with copying; misappropriation of a companies logo bearing property can invoke copyright violations.

    -everphilski-

    1. Re:It's simple by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Learn the English language.

      I speak the English language fairly well, it's my mother tongue and I'm educated in it. Must you act like a jerk?

      And copyright doesn't have to have anything to do with copying; misappropriation of a companies logo bearing property can invoke copyright violations.

      No, that is utterly untrue. Misappropriation of a companies logo is trademark infringement and not ever covered by copyright law.

      Maybe you should read about the act here or read the actual act here.

      Hell, read what wiki says about it. While you're at it, find out what trademark and copyright even mean.

      Copyright, most assuredly, relates entirely to copying and the right to do so. Trademark specifically deals with has to do with company logos and their use. Nary the twain shall meet.

      Now, go boil your own head.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  189. Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! by hosecoat · · Score: 1
    The first time you order a shipment of boxes from the USPS, they make you sign something saying that you acknowledge this fact and that those supplies are indeed only for the purpose of sending stuff by means of USPS.

    oh, they're for sending...when i get around to it.

  190. BUT NO TAPE! by ArtisteTerroriste · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but about a month ago they stopped offering the free tape because people were abusing it!

    1. Re:BUT NO TAPE! by SophtwareSlump · · Score: 1

      I play on a beer league ice hockey team and a lot of people use the USPS Priority tape to tape their ankles / keep their socks up with. It's amusing to say the least.

    2. Re:BUT NO TAPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bah...just get a roll of labels and use that to paste your boxes together

      http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non _ssl/display_products/productDetail.jsp?OID=100357 7

      But of course, "misuse may be a violation of federal law"!

    3. Re:BUT NO TAPE! by henleg · · Score: 1

      Free packaging material? Ah, I've never heard of it - but then again; I'm in Sweden! ;)

  191. Housing by kkleimola · · Score: 1

    What the hell am I going to do about my house now? Hopefully FEDEX doesnt bust my ass... I'll be screwed.

  192. Perhaps if He... by pentalive · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if he promises to ship his furniture via FEDEX next time he has to move.

    Actually Fed Ex should play this up... Look how STRONG these boxes are, you can make FURNITURE with them.

  193. Not so silly by BraceletWinner · · Score: 1
    Imagine this: I register a domain like 'mcdonaldsfrenchfries.com' where I display pictures of said fries in their red logoed box, and for some reason millions of people come to my site. I sell ad space and make money off of the McDonald's name. Why should McDonald's allow this?

    Now, if I register 'mmmfrenchfries.com' and display pictures of only McDonald's fries, but do not display their logo prominently and do not mention them by name, then McDonald's should have no legal issue with this.

    My own opinion is that if this guy just changed his site (and URL for sure) to not reflect the FedEx name, they'd be okay with what he is doing.

  194. Just when I thought FesEx was cool by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

    I guess I'll have to try out DHL now. I've heard a few good things about them...

  195. Well duh by Valiss · · Score: 1

    The bed can handle his 5-foot-6-inch, 165-pound frame, even when he jumps up and down on it (an experiment he tried in response to an e-mail asking if the bed could support two people).

    And the reason he couldn't actually test his bed with two people on it obvious.... right?

    Umm... he likes tall girls?

    --

    -Valiss
    1. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... he likes tall girls?

      Judging from his picture, I don't think liking girls is a concern at all.

      Not that many girls would like him either... Day-Glo pink hair and an outfit right out of the 70s? Someone call the fashion police!

  196. Re: Commercial = .net by rsmeds · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where did you get that idea from?

    According to RFC 920 -- Domain Requirements (1984):

    "The initial top level domain names are:
    ...
    COM = Commercial, any commercial related domains meeting the second level requirements..."


    According to RFC1591 -- Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (1994) :

    "COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies..."

    Also, regarding .net domains:

    "NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers..."

  197. Take action by serutan · · Score: 1

    FedEx Customer Relations
    3875 Airways, Module H3 Department 4634
    Memphis, TN 38116

    Dear FedEx,

    I was greatly disappointed to learn of your lawsuit against Jose Avila for operating a website describing furniture constructed from FedEx shipping boxes. I don't see how his furniture making or website could possibly harm FedEx in any way, and I consider your legal action a case of pointless bullying and a misuse of the DMCA.

    Accordingly, I have begun using United Parcel Service for all my non-USPS personal and business shipping needs. I hope to do business with your company in the future, but I will no longer be using any FedEx products or services until the lawsuit against Avila has been dropped.

    Have a nice day.

    1. Re:Take action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  198. How Self Serving of You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "mirroring" other people's content may be a gray area, but selling ads on other people's content that you are redistributing w/o permission is clearly abusive and illegal IMHO. And I'll bet that Google will agree with me.

    Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:30:00 -0700
    To: adsense-abuse@google.com
    Subject: Copyright Infringement by AdSense Publisher NetworkMirror.Com

    AdSense Abuse Dept:

    I would like to notify you that the site http://www.networkmirror.com/
    is built on wholesale copyright and trademark infringement. Their
    whole business model is to take other people's content without
    permission and slap Google ads on top. Their AdSense account number
    is pub-7168052259073832 . Here are a few examples of them
    redistributing other people's content w/o permission:

    Microsoft Xbox: http://www.networkmirror.com/zpZU1B8STo3S18ia/www. xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm
    Business Week:
    +http://www.networkmirror.com/KaDMFeNhV7iRa66v/www .businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8BSQCK80.htm%3 Fcampai
    +gn_id%3Dapn_tech_down%26chan%3Dtc%2Ehtml
    Google: http://www.networkmirror.com/1AocvEX6_cL3hmH0/goog leblog.blogspot.com/index.html

    This is a blatant violation of the AdSense TOS. You have previously
    shut down AdSense on similar sites, including www.mirrordot.org. Note
    also that networkmirror.com has hired a 3rd party domain proxy service
    to hide their identity because they know that they are violating
    copyright/trademark law. Please remove them from your program.

  199. its all about licenseagreements: this world sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fedex licensagreements:

    you are not allowed to use these boxes for anything else except for packaging and sending goods.

    you are not allowed to take pictures of them and post it on the internet....

    in the near future every shit and their brother will be accompanied by licensagreements....

    licensagreements for the licenseagreements:

    you are allowed to print this licenseagreement for the sole purpose of reading and understanding and for keeping a hardcopy of this electronic text in your shelf.

    additionally you are not allowed to use the printout as toilet paper or to give it to your children to use it for drawing nor for paperrecycling etc blah blah....

    this world is totally going down the toilet and with extra pace and speed each day...

    when will the big cleansing bang come at last.

    mankind is just so evil and fucked towards each other. nothing but hate and violence....

    this species doesnt deserve to exist any more....

    times up doodes. what will jesus say if he appears pretty soon now....

    he wont be pleased i can tell ya.....

    sweet dreams

  200. Re:Private/Public Clarification by mpapet · · Score: 1

    The USPS is what is referred to as semi-private.

    They are set up to run like a business where they should at least self-sustain, but they remain in the control of the federal government.

    The Federal Reserve has an even more complicated relationship as a "non-profit" bank that has been referred to as semi-private.

    Sallie Mae used to be semi-private. I believe one of the big home mortgage lenders used to be a semi-private program too.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  201. Bad example by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

    Well, actually, less than half of those "deposits" are ever returned and the remainder is given back to support this cost.

    But nice try. :-)

    Not that I disagree with your point, but i wanted to quibble your example.

    Stewey

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  202. country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is this the kind of country we want in the U.S.?"

    In which state would we put this country?

  203. This is NOT trademark infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A trademark only applies for the very specific industry niche for which it is registered.

    If for example, Federal Express did not register FedEx trademark for say, automobile tires, and an automobile tire trademark classification exists, you can open your own company called say, "FedEx Tire Corp" and with your own logo, etc. trademark and market your company.

    Not only that, limited use of registered trademarks is allowed for such things similar to that of copyrighted works; satire, parody, etc. which this site clearly is.

    I hope he has a GOOD lawyer who actually bothered to read trademark law, because he can now countersue Federal Express for:

    * Defamation of character
    * Libel
    * Slander
    * (possibly) Harassment
    * of course, undue stress, punitive damamages for the stress, legal fees, and since the sight was /.'d as a direct result of FedEx's unlawful suit, bandwidth/hosting costs, etc.

    It doesn't take a genius to read the law which is readily available on the uspto web site. MeThinks FedEx attorneys and execs are on crack, and some pimple-faced intern paralegal is looking to make a name for himself, only if it goes to trial and the defense team has half a clue, that pimple-faced dork will never, ever find a job at any reputable law firm. He might be able to find a job as a ninth-circuit justice and legislate from the bench though. ;)

  204. There are better ways to respond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, then don't give out free ketchup packets :P

    Or look to Subway--notice how they only give you 1-2 napkins per sandwich? And for most subs, 3 pieces of meat every 6" and 2 pieces of cheese? It's quite deliberate.

    If you feel it's abuse, change the rules. Do NOT go off suing people or threatening to do so under half-baked legal theories.

    Of course, if they DO sue this poor guy and take all of his money somehow, at least we know he'll be fine thanks to his skill at building cardboard furniture and dwellings :P

  205. Ask them where they get their bulk half and half! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are losing money on the deal (which is possible, though not likely), you could always ask where they get their half and half, and buy it in bulk from the source for a lower price.

  206. Mod parent -1 Misleading, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    You are wrong, and you were an ass about it. Well done, Internet fuckwad. (Don't bring up the irony, God dammit! I will not stand for it!)

    But seriously now. The USPS is not independent. You wouldn't call me "independent" from my girlfriend if I required her signature to spend money, would you? It's a government-owned, government-regulated corporate entity. The fact that it's "corporate" doesn't make it "independent" at all!

    And it's a federal offense in the same way that many kinds of tamperings with federal affairs are. Destruction of currency, for example. Feel free to assume it's not a federal offense, though. A few discarded envelopes, and we won't have to worry about you posting on Slashdot anymore. Or do they have the Internets in Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison now?

  207. Tools to circumvent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Not only must we stop the insidious production of box furniture but we must see that box cutters, packing tape, and rulers are destroyed as well. These are the evil tools these evil doers use to violate our rights.

    Then....on to Web Browsers and HTTP Servers! Then to the mother of all violators....Operating Systems. No other tool has caused so much duplication and distribution of our most sacred IP.

    We cannot let such things to continue.

  208. Re: Commercial = .net by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Yep, I've got it wrong way round. I'm sure I read a long while ago that originally it was designed for 'everything else', but I must have it confused with the state of the .com domain as it stands today.

  209. I'd like to see the DIY plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for box furniture based on boxes of X size, the plans do not have to mention that the boxes originate from any particular company.

  210. no money by lophophore · · Score: 1

    for a guy with no money he certainly has two or three computers, and what looks to be a pretty nice apartment. Not to mention money for web hosting of a pretty silly topic.

    Fedex is likely most pissed because that packing material costs them money, and Mr. Avila has eggregiously helped himself to Fedex's property, which is intended for their customers to use to ship packages.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:no money by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      This old old news. They guy is a freegan and originally had left-over boxes from some legitimate use.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  211. give them bad publicity by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    the only way to deal with these companies, is to blast them with so much bad press they back down. and hopfully fire the moron who thought of this.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  212. Why "intellectual property" conflates. by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article:

    "DMCA only applies to copyrighted works, and they [FedEx] were basically making trademark-related claims, so it was completely outrageous," said Lauren Gelman, associate director of the Stanford center.

    A good time to remind us of why RMS insists on having different opinions about the public policy questions raised by disparate laws (including trademark, copyright, and patent law) with different histories and purposes; the alternative he rejects is lumping these laws together into "intellectual property".

  213. Of course it's not... by msauve · · Score: 0

    just like the Federal Reserve Banks. HAW! HAW! Good joke, though, that you believe what they tell you.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  214. Re:COCKROACH EGGS IN BEER BOXES by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    "Let me tell you something... I ALWAYS open the side case cover very very carefully. You never know when a swarm of 20+ roaches come crawling out the moment they see some light."

    Imagine the trauma of people in the old Comp Sci labs where every machine would have 'xhost +' enabled... and some smartass would run 'xroaches' on their display... You think its bad when the roaches come out of the box? How about when every time you move a window on your desktop!?!?!?

    Ahhh those were the days

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  215. What a great response by Granick! by neoThoth · · Score: 2, Informative

    The PDF is a little confusing because it's posted upside down but it's a great read.
    I will briefly paraphrase for those too lazy to read this themselves..
    Grannick's response is:
    1) There isn't a chance in hell someone would confuse the fedexfurniture site for a multinational shipping organization
    2) Some guy sold artistic expression of Barbie doing naughty things once
    2a) not only did a court find this OK but the company (Mattel) that tried to sue him ended up paying for all his attorneys fees (HINT: Fedex will pay lots of money to Avila if you pursue this)
    3) The DMCA reference is Bullshit!
    4) He complied with all your websites terms and conditions
    5) BTW we put his website on Stanford's servers. Care to sue us both?

    In just a page and a half she shredded their case and taunted them to try and sue one of the top legal institutions in the country. But it's all done so subtley.
    I have a feeling a NEW terms and conditions will get posted to Fedex in the very near future. Just a gut feeling.

  216. Not Dot Net eather by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    .Com - Commertal .Net - Internet related. Maybe an ISP or other BUSINESS related... .Org - A non-proffit... Oh wait Not Fedex related and yadda yadda... wow your not getting a break .tv - Obveously a TV show about the subject. Money. Umm yeah .Biz - Horray it's.. oh right nevermind .Web - Umm kinda like .Net .cc - Generic enough but so is .Com and here they clame it's obveous he has a commertal intent.
    Most of the .cc domains are just companys duping to make sure nobody domain squats. Not exactly a leap of logic to say .cc is the new dot com

    Ummm yeah ...

    --
    I don't actually exist.
    1. Re:Not Dot Net eather by Helios292 · · Score: 1

      With how this guy is getting fucked by FedEx, clearly the only option is .cx.

  217. bed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well we all know he's not getting laid
    not one dent.

  218. Ship To by Valiss · · Score: 1

    Wow! When the box is full, where do you ship the stuff?


    Please send all packages to:

    G.W.B.
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20500

    *ahem*

    --

    -Valiss
  219. MOD PARENT DOWN by grouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is just wrong. Why on earth did people mod it up? I guess that's Slashdot for you.

    RFC 920, back in 1984, says that "COM = Commercial, any commercial related domains meeting the second level requirements."

  220. FedEx is NON-Profit! by Valiss · · Score: 1

    Proof:

    fedex.org

    Sanity from whom?

    --

    -Valiss
  221. Fedex Cubed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the people who think this is wrong.

    If this guy is shipping his fedexbox furniture
    with fedex or any other carrier,the size and weight of his boxed product is being cubed.
    That means he will have to pay a hell of a lot
    more money for shipping. The price of free boxen
    is built in to the cost of shipping...

    PS: Since when has any company given away free shit.

    I rest my case.
    Violetsweet

  222. Lawyers should pay damages for letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    This perfectly illustrates my contention that lawyers (not their clients, although it this case these seem to be FedEx lawyers), should have to pay and pay big when they send out letters that make claims no court is likely to support.

    In this case, the lawyers seem a bit dim about IP law, and not just the DMCA. The parody bit about "social or other commentary regarding FedEx" is particularly dumb. Parody makes fun of a copyright holder or how they write, speak or sing. As much as I might hope otherwise, it has nothing to do with social commentary and you can parody out of sheer nastiness if you want. Besides, you can't copyright "FedEx," you can only trademark it. Anyone is perfectly free to write a novel filled with references to FedEx without violating any FedEx "copyright." And copyright only deals with publications, you don't "publish" a chair.

    There should be a court-sanctioned fast track to award damages in situations such as this. Those getting these dreadfully inaccurate threatening letters could go to court and quickly not only get compensated for any legal fees they have to pay to find out what this FedEx lawyer is saying is gibberish, but get a hefty damage award to discourage lawyers from making such outlandish claims. And I mean big money, big as in six figure and above settlements. Big as in getting fixed for life for one out-of-bounds cease and desist letter.

    We need to bind up lawyers as tightly as lawyers have bound up everyone else. The law need not care how nastily and dishonestly lawyers treat one another, but their letters to non-lawyers should have to be as carefully worded as SEC filings. They shouldn't be able to make any claim that's not going to stand up in any court in the land. They should have to tell those they'd like to threaten all sorts of reasons why they, as lawyers, may be wrong in what they're claiming. They should have to state that if we win, all our legal fees may be paid by them and we may even be awarded damages. In short, any lawyer dealing with a non-lawyer who is not his client should have to be very, very, very, very nice.

    That, after all, is what surgeons have to do. They have to tell you all sorts of reasons why you might not want to get the surgery. Ditto drug companies. Ditto cops making an arrest. Ditto everyone right now but lawyers. That's not "equal justice under law."

    The law should be the same for lawyers as it is for everyone else. Of course, tell that to some lawyers and they will go ballistic. I mentioned this to one lawyer and within seconds he was red-faced and almost screaming. The bad sort of lawyers don't like this. No my precious, they don't like it at all. It takes away the One Ring they use to rule over non-lawyers. Take away their ability to lie and threaten and where would they be? Poor smucks with nothing to do.

    --Mike Perry, Seattle Untangling Tolkien

    P.S. By the way, I was in a copyright dispute over the book above. I hung in there and saw every claim the opposing lawyers made in their cease and desist letter demolished. In the end, facing a strong possibility of losing at summary judgment, they became quite polite, particularly after the judge dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice. But my book was delayed for a year and a half by their threats and for that I got not a penny. The lawyers, however, got quite rich off the Tolkien family.

  223. Chair needs a triangle box by Caseyscrib · · Score: 1
    I think if this dude put a triangle box on the side of his desk chair, he would be able to lean back on it. You could even cut a hole in the triangle and use those tubes to make arm-rests.

    Pretty cool stuff though. Looks like fun to build.

  224. Re:its all about licenseagreements: this world suc by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    I don't think you can have a license agreement on a box. Seeing as how you're not getting a license to use the box, you're getting the actual box. Not the idea of a box, the fucking box.

    If there's a goddamned license agreement on the box, what's next? You're being granted a license to posess that milkshake cup from Burger King? Come on, that's total bullshit.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  225. Can't afford Furniture? Me neither by gattm99 · · Score: 1

    And I've never had to resort to building furniture out of boxes. I've never bought a new piece of furniture in my life, other then a matress. People are always wanting to give away furniture. Hell I picked up my coffee table on the side of the road.

  226. A missed opportunity for marketing spin by lullabud · · Score: 1

    You see people making movies about Converse shoes, people rapping about Surge soda, and doing all sorts of silly and creative things with their favorite products and the marketing department spins them up into revenue. In this case, yes, he got a bunch of boxes without paying for them and used them for an unintended purpose. Still, how much is this worth to their marketing department?? A hell of a lot more than they're going to get out of that guy if they sue him, I'll tell you that much. They should've had the marketing department spin it up, make a commercial about it, maybe even a whole ad campaign, and then they would've made a bunch of money without having to pay crazy costs to ad agencies to come up with some stupid idea like those Taco Bell commercials. It's free publicity, and the fact that they handed it off to the legal department is making it all bad publicity instead of good. Very bad choice on their part.

  227. Re:COCKROACH EGGS IN BEER BOXES by kngthdn · · Score: 1

    Where is the '+1 Disturbing' moderation?...

    My laptop looks different now.

  228. Re:Can't afford Furniture? Me neither by badman99 · · Score: 0

    Hmmm and I did pick up my dinner on da other side of that there road too......

  229. No money - but enough for PINK HAIR and MAKEUP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091473/ww w.wired.com/news/images/full/pinstripesuit_f.jpg

    Check out the pic and you tell me this fruit isn't wearing makeup, and a pretty nice pinstriped suit. This is the guy that built the FedEx boxes.

    He's broke, but has enough money for makeup, a nice suit, and PINK hair?

    Please.

    http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091473/ww w.wired.com/news/images/full/pinstripesuit_f.jpg

  230. Dumbass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, it's a neat idea and all but...

    He's using the name "FedEx Furniture"... He's using the FedEx logo on the boxes and even the FedEx colors on his web site... HEY DUMBASS YOU CAN'T USE SOMEONE ELSES TRADEMARKS FOR YOUR OWN PRODUCTS!

    Sheesh... People are idiots. It's like all the game mods and stuff that get shut down because they are using official logos and names. HELLO?! MORONS, YOUR TRAIN IS LEAVING!

    It's not that what he is doing is in violation of anything (although maybe FedEx "owns" all their boxes) but he's using the FedEx name for his own purposes.

  231. This reminds me... by Pasajero · · Score: 0

    Of that other guy who used to sell expensive pictures of soup cans... what was the name?

    I think he's famous for being at the Amiga introduction party. :-)

  232. UPS thinks they own used boxes by erice · · Score: 1

    Oh absolutely. If they're used boxes, I'm pretty sure they're considered fair game. At least a reasonable person would think so.

    I would think so too, but it turns out, UPS isn't reasonable. I tried to ship a package UPS ground in an obviously used, UPS 2nd day box. The refused to take it. They said I had to send it 2nd day. I took it to Fedex. They shipped it without questions and for less money than UPS would have.

    1. Re:UPS thinks they own used boxes by atayarani · · Score: 1

      The reason UPS said it had to be second day is because they would have been confused by the second day markings on the box if you had shipped it ground. I'm sure if you had used an old fedex box, FedEx would have done the same. It's not that they are unreasonable, it's just that many modern delivery systems are in dire need of improvement.

  233. Coming soon.... by optikshell · · Score: 1

    I think I'm going to have FedEx ship me a bunch of boxes so I can make a big FedEx fire in my backyard.

    1) Free FexEx boxes
    2) arrange said boxes
    3) add fire...
    4) www.fedexonfire.com
    5) ...Profit!

    --
    [optikshell.com] My weblog / gathering of neat (read geek) stuff.
  234. Perhaps they should have just used their Hushkit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  235. let them eat bake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you suck!

  236. Gaak! by nickthisname · · Score: 1

    This guy can't afford furniture, but he can afford
    a lawyer to battle FedEx? Well there
    goes the free boxes.

  237. The reverse of something even more fascinating by fourdegree · · Score: 1

    This is interesting, but I think you all should look at CITY magazine's UN_FOLD project, where designers around the world made chairs in a limited time frame--the only condition being that they had to fit into a FED EX BOX. There's a really cool video to accompany the project here: http://www.city-magazine.com/vid_16UNFOLD.html And the CITY magazine site info page on UN_FOLD is at: http://www.city-magazine.com/projects.html enjoy.

  238. Parent is full of shit, mod down by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    see grouse's post

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  239. Re:its all about licenseagreements: this world suc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but dont you see that this is already the way the world works these days....

    companies come after you for all sorts of mindless reasons, and they will utilize all sorts of legal means to make your life a misery.....

    just think about it.

  240. HURRRR by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    If they're afraid of guys like this, why don't they just charge a small fee for the boxes, which is applied to the price of shipping when you use them for the intended purpose?

  241. Are you telling me that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is also a commercial entity?

  242. Wrong account terminated by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Fedex should simply have terminated Avila's Fedex shipping account if he is violating their terms of use.

    Maybe we can make a movie out this and add it as a special feature to a new DVD edition of Castaway, the movie starring Tom Hanks that Fedex participated in because of the positive corporate image it showed.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  243. Can't make it up? by slyguy135 · · Score: 1
    You just can't make this stuff up.

    If it's Wired you can.

    [Please, no libel suits or flames. I don't have the time or energy.]

  244. so, you are advocating he break a contract. by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    he likely has a lease on the previous apartment. if he couldn't/can't find a suitable person to sublet the suite, he is contractually on the hook for the cash. how is that hard to understand?

    is it a 'dumbass' move to actually fulfill your commitments? apparently you think it is...

    sum.zero

  245. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  246. Michael will be mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't you seend any of his documentaries?

    All corporations have an ehtical duty to be charitable to everyone who thinks to ask.

    If they don't give me free stuff, just because they are big, they are unethical, and need to be stopped.

    FedEx should pay him money for his ingenuity, and set him up in business.

  247. People are FUCKED by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Who fucking cares, really?

    Fuck the DMCA and fuck all the cocksucking politicians bowing to the almighty dollar and fucking this country up in the process.

    We need some common sense laws in this country that don't allow for such trivial lawsuits to take place.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  248. This guy is my friend... by kalislashdot · · Score: 1
    This guy is my friend, ex-roommate. He did get the idea ofr our friend tom who is a big ebayer who order too many fed ex boxes by mistake and made the first desk. Jose moved from So Cal to AZ just a few months ago, he has nothing but some clothes and a few computers and that damn lamp. I was wiht him when he bought it at Staples. He was probally bored and that is why he made the furniture, another frined though it was cool and told him he should post the pictures. Fed Ex found out about it the first day and sent him a letter.


    I know the full story, most of it is on his website or the wired artitcle or the Make article. Some is a little sanatized since there is no reason to reveal everything to the public.


    He is a nice guy, does get laid on occassion (I have heard it myself, old roomate), he does have a good job, the reason he moved to AZ but he does pay double rent as he is holding his bargin with the other od the old roomates till the lease is up. But a 90% increase in salary from his just in So Cal vs the one in AZ made it worth it.

    1. Re:This guy is my friend... by TenLow · · Score: 1

      90% increase and he's still living out of a box (so to speak) And speaking as someone who's seen the women he consorts with, that bed wouldnt hold.

  249. Re:COCKROACH EGGS IN BEER BOXES by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

    If you're concerned about cockroach eggs, maybe try Liquid Detergent display boxes. I get them at my local budget supermarket, the ones where you have to buy your own bags and the empty boxes are at the front of the store for free.