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."
It's free publicity for FexEx. And now, it's all negative!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Andy Warhol would be in a lot of trouble.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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
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
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
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
"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."
.com is a global namespace, no? .. sanity indeed
And while you're at it, presuming you're an american, why not use your darned country TLD..
hooked up funny
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.