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!
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
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) 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!
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.