Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FedEx Cracks Down on Box Furniture, Citing DMCA

Posted by timothy on from the news-of-the-nutty dept.

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."

27 of 778 comments (clear)

  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 dthrall · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's that USPS URL:

      http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non _ssl/home.jsp

    2. 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
    3. 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...

    4. 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

    5. 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?

    6. 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.."

  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 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.

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

    Weird... very weird

    Mirror.

    --

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

  6. 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.
  7. 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!

  8. 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 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).

  9. 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."
  10. 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.
  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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?
  15. 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.