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.
Andy Warhol would be in a lot of trouble.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
"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.
"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