Slashdot Mirror
Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk
An anonymous reader writes "A poster on DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer has posted the weekly ads for Circuit City, Best Buy, and Target ahead of time for the last few years. A few weeks ago he confirmed that there was an intended price break on the PS3 and stole Sony's thunder from E3. A Circuit City ad was used for confirmation. Circuit City has threatened DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer.com to give them personal information about the poster. CheapAssGamer has hired a lawyer and is going to fight. The story is similar to the Black Friday ads being posted early and FatWallet fighting back."
Creating hype is a bad thing?
A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW). They are reasonably, and according to legal procedure, trying to get information from a third party to help identify the thief. It is the responsibility of that third party to provide such information.
Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.
Speedy1961 regularly posts BestBuy, CC, and Target prices weeks in advance on CAG's forums. As a testament to his accuracy, Gamespot and other sites use his info in stories relating to price drops, as was the case with the PS3.
My monthy videogame expenditures have increased thanks to CAG, but I'm actually getting more games now that I know where to shop. Prior to CAG, I would only purchase videogames online. Now I venture into brick and mortar stores like CC during their sales.
But thanks to these events, I won't be shopping at CC ever again, and I'm sure other CAGers have similar sentiments. By virtue of being a price comparison/deals website, CAG attracts more "principled" and informed consumers. Is it worth pissing off 100,000 such people, CC? Even if this is a valid case, people will be pissed if their favorite "inside" man is silenced.
What a waste of time. I suppose the bottom feeders like lawyers need jobs too though. What's next? Prison time for somebody that released sale ads on the internet...oh my, the criminals out there have gotten hard core haven't they?! I'm sure glad I pay taxes so we can keep these dangerous criminals behind bars, now if they'd do something about the clowns so I can sleep at night.
We want journalists to be able to report on the inner workings of government, why should corporations who wield as much or more power than politicians be immune to the power of the media? If they don't want their secrets getting out, protect them better.
And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA. As you mention, prices are facts and not subject to copyright. Therefore, the wrongdoing in this case hinges on whether or not the leaker had signed some sort of NDA. However, it is not likely anyone who hasn't signed an NDA would have legitimate access to that information, and so that person should have to defend their actions in court.
A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I dunno if pricing schedules are really a 'trade secret' tho. I guess they changed the definition of 'trade secret' when I wasn't looking.
Blar.
Stealing corporate secrets is also wrong if you stole them.
If someone w/o a NDA breaks into a system (physically or electronically) and steals information not under copyright (say the process for manufacturing a pharmaceutical) not only is the break in wrong, but the use or distribution of the data by a third party is also wrong.
Working as a carrier for a local newspaper, I had advanced knowledge of sales and was not bound by a NDA. I was even permitted to deliver the Sunday adds on the previous Wednesday evening. The practice was frowned on because there were occasions where people took the adds to the store and demanded the sale price before the sale was to start.
In the case of the sony PS3 wouldn't it be sony that would be out since the price drop was across the board with the PS3? I've worked at Best Buy and we would get information before a major sale and usually would have the flier posted in the break room a few days in advanced. I know most places price match competitors and their own in 30 days. so even if circuit city had an item for less the day of the sale i can't see where this would a determent to Circuit city since you can have best buy match the lowest price in 30 days
some people are a "glass half empty" some are "glass half full" i'm a "there is something in the glass be happy" person
I knew that I phrased that wrong. What if you are an employee who did not sign an NDA, but you have access to that information? The information is not protected by copyright, it made up of simple facts. What it to keep you from sharing that with others?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wrong? That is a subjective term. Revealing trade secrets is illegal in most of the US under most situations. Copyright and NDA's don't have anything to do with the legality.
A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.Well, this is sort of true. Rights should be applied universally and equitably to all people, and maybe even to some degree to animals. We're talking, however, about the rights of a corporation. A corporation is not a person, it is a legal construct and legitimacy of a corporations' rights are very much a point of debate. The legitimacy of the right to a trade secret is likewise a matter of debate. Do I have a right to stop a person who finds out one of my secrets from exercising their freedom of speech and telling others? If my girlfriend tells you that I'm willing to take $20 for the book I have on Ebay, even though I'm asking $100 and you post that information here on Slashdot, should I legally be able to force Slashdot to reveal your identity to me, so I can bring a lawsuit against you? Legally, I probably do have that right, but I'm not sure ethically or morally that I should have that right.
"And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA."
I'd say many NDA's are wrong to begin with. If a company doesn't want people knowing, I can see NDA's for workers, but what if the company is going out of its way to give "sneak peeks" of a product not already finished like in the games industry? I mean sometimes I think businesses are just asking for the impossible, kind of like prohibition where you know you wont be able to enforce it.
Wow, I'm going to look up trade secret laws now. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know how they work, because if you are right about this, then I was very mistaken.
You bring up a good point about corporations, and about ethics as well. Food for thought, thanks.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A few years back I worked at a factory that printed phone books, comic books, and Sunday circulars. I never once was asked to sign an NDA regarding the information contained therein. I did, in fact, have legitimate access to the content without it. Times have most likely changed..
I say corporations have less rights as "legal persons" *rolling eyes* than you as a biological person have.
Right now, it seems corporations have more rights, and that's B.S.
Corporations should be more legally vulnerable to journalist activity than persons, even celebrities.
As for argument #1, well, determining what is a journalist should be fairly easy: did that person who posted Circuit City's secrets have ties to competing businesses? If not, they pass muster. Sorry, Circuit City.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW).
Trade secret theft is a felony, but publishing trade secret information is not in general. In order to go after anybody, they first have to establish that a theft occurred. If they can't make a convincing argument to that effect, the presumption is that they simply handled their trade secret information carelessly, and that does not give them rights to go after anybody or infringe anybody's rights to anonymous free speech.
They have every right to find out who did it.
Keeping trade secrets is the responsibility of the company and of the company alone; in general, they do not have a right to use the legal system to help them in their investigations.
The violator should be fired, if nothing else.
He should be; but it's the company's responsibility to identify him using only the means available to them, nobody else's.
If Circuit City is a bad company (e.g., if they don't protect their inventory or business information against theft as well as their competitors), then Circuit City should go out of business and lay off their employees. Another company will then fill that market niche and re-hire those employees (at least those that are worth hiring). That's how a free market works. Companies are replacable and workers are mobile. How you care for your family and whether you can afford luxuries like a home and a car, is your business, not anybody else's.
People getting laid off is a normal part of our market economy. You seem to be a socialist or communist, someone who wants to guarantee families an income no matter how badly they or their employer screw up. I'm glad people like you are not in charge in the US.
If you work for a company that did sign such an NDA, then the company can be liable for releasing the information improperly.
If the company that owns the secret gives you the information, they are then not handling the information as trade secret and lose any possible protection.
Pretty much, if you come into contact with information that is trade secret and are not under some agreement not to disclose it, the information is being mishandled. Period. Either the information is not really trade secret because the owner is mishandling it or someone else is mishandling it and is violating several criminal statues and can be held civilly liable as well.
Many "chain stores" also supply sale information in advance to their stores, so that department managers can get an idea if they need to stock up on products. I seriously doubt even these department managers sign NDA's either. Now the company may not like the outcome, and may now make all people with such access sign an NDA's going forward... But I think other than firing the one responsible for this, for being bad a employee, there is nothing they can do to them.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Slashdot's system is abused and has a number of serious flaws, but it is at least partly functional. OTOH, the problem with Digg could be their demographic too, but I wouldn't want to take the chance.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Corporations aren't entities of their own They are extensions of their owners and carry the same rights of their owners. They are treated like separate entities because with silent owners, there needs to be a way to protect their interest while shielding them from actions caused by the company but not by their direction.
As far as I am concerned, there is no debate over them. Once you remove all the magical smoke and mirrors of the law, they are still owned by people who have rights and those rights are extended through the company. It is impossible to escape that and still live in a free society.
I don't think you understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities. You state that there must be a way for people exercise their rights, while being protected from the liability, but if you're profiting from actions, then you are partially responsible for those actions. I don't see it as a given that investors should not lose rights in correspondence with their lack of responsibility for the actions of their agents.
It is impossible to escape that and still live in a free society.There is no fundamental right to form a corporation and be protected from responsibility from crimes committed by your employees, for your profit. It might make sense economically, in some ways, but only with corresponding limitations imposed upon those groups of employees, since we're no longer discussing fundamental freedoms, but artificial restrictions and benefits designed to engineer a common good. While individual investors should of course have all natural human rights, corporations should only have such rights as benefit the common good.
I take it that you have never owned a business or participated in the owner ship of one. This is probably going to hard for you to understand but there is a degree of separability from action I'm not directly connected with. It is the same for investors. If I loan you money for whatever reason and you ignore that reason and decide to buy a gun ad go killing people, Should I be just as responsible as you? Should I be sued because I funded you? Should you be jailed if the shoe was on the other foot and I was the one shooting people?
Business' or corporations aren't far from that scenario. They get funded to the point they are solvent and then someone else takes actions regarding the plan and whatever crops up. Unless you took part in something illegal, why should you be held for someone else's actions? You have to assume they are law abiding and going to continue not to break the law so why are should you be liable? Now suppose the company goes bankrupt, they were completely funded when you took your hands off, nothing in that bankruptcy was your direct fault, no one broke the law, should you lose you house and home because of someone else's actions? Should you be indebted for life because someone showed you a business plan that should have made money and for whatever reason that wasn't a violation of a law it didn't? Seriously, tell me why they should. Don't give me the They made a profit. You make a profit working for them, we can just as easily point the same argument your way. your profiting from the business so your enabling them just the same.
There is a fundemental necessity to form a corporation. You probably wouldn't have a job and the economy/world wouldn't be as developed as it is today without them. If everyone who started a business went bankrupt from fines or lawsuits or ended up in jail for the actions of people disconnected from them except by employment and profit who are supposed to obey the laws and rules but for some reason don't, you wouldn't have any jobs or companies making jobs available. I can't control what you will do or say, we live in a free society. Part of that free society is expecting people to be lawful but it doesn't always happen. When it doesn't happen, you shouldn't be punished for my crime and vice versa because one of us is making a profit. You working for a company for profit has the same connections as a person investing in the company for profit. You are just as much of an enabler just like the owners who aren't taking an active role in the decision making when someone violates a law while representing the company. I don't think it would be anywhere near proper to punish you as an employee and enabler who was removed from the breaking of the law just as it shouldn't be for the investors in the same boat.
There is no corporate veil that hides the people who break the laws. They are accountable just as you would be if you done so. If the directors of the company or even the owners are th ones breaking the laws,
A few years back it seemed like there was this huge gray area regarding who is or isn't an online journalist but recent cases have come down in favor of erring on the side of caution. CC should have taken a look at how well Apple faired and never even filed the case. I realize the cases are not quite the same but this still sounds like a Freedom of the Press issue.
-- Argel
Actually, I've done both.
This is probably going to hard for you to understand but there is a degree of separability from action I'm not directly connected with.Your degree of responsibility, however, corresponds with your degree of involvement. If you're profiting from actions, you're partially responsible.
If I loan you money for whatever reason and you ignore that reason and decide to buy a gun ad go killing people, Should I be just as responsible as you?Of course not. If, however, you loan me money for a gun, knowing I'm likely to do something criminal with it, and you charge me interest on that loan, then you may well be guilty of conspiracy. Your analogy does not apply because shareholders can vote on the actions of the corporation, and because shareholders profit from the actions of the corporation.
Unless you took part in something illegal, why should you be held for someone else's actions?So when the italian mob boss tells Vinnie to whack the old lady and gives him 5 grand, the mob boss should not be held partially responsible for that crime? What if he just tells Vinnie to make sure nobody who saw anything talks and Vinnie kills the old lady? Did the mob boss have reason to believe Vinnie was going to commit criminal acts?
Whether or not something is illegal or not, is not the same thing as if something should be legal. Right now, corporate shareholders may be completely in the clear legally, despite profiting from and possibly encouraging criminal acts, but that does not mean that should be the case and there i no natural right to be protected as you previously claimed.
There is a fundemental necessity to form a corporation.No, there is a practical benefit to the economy and thus society for the existence of corporations, but corporations also cause a lot of misery for society. The balance of how many rights individuals should be able to transfer to a corporation and how many legal responsibilities shareholders bear for the actions of that corporations, are simply a proctical matter and they should be adjusted to whatever benefits society the most.
You working for a company for profit has the same connections as a person investing in the company for profit.This is only true if you are in a position to make decisions for that company, in ways that cause illegal acts. For example, if you're paid to staple papers and you are given an hourly wage, you have no ability to determine if the company does or does not hire the Yakuza to kill a competitor. You don't directly profit by that act. If, on the other hand, you are a shareholder and the CEO you hired does this, and you pay him bonuses for how much the company earns, then you've just given that CEO the incentive to kill people, by paying them for it. If one CEO is caught, you hire a new one. What motivation is there for the company to stop doing it and for you to stop hiring people you know have mob connections and will act accordingly?
Without protecting investers and owners of corporations, the entire world would be set back i don't know how many years.Did I argue against protecting investors? I argued that the amount of protection given to investors should correlate with the amount of control over their investment they cede to society. This is a simple matter of rights and responsibility, just as I first said, and as I said, you don't seem to understand the relationship.
Somehow I doubt this. Maybe it is you stance or lack of understanding or maybe it is how I read your reply and although you want to argue differently, you make the exact same points I made but somehow it only counts for your position. I'll take your word for it but I feel like I'm about to get scammed.
Mere profiting doesn't represent accountability to actions you weren't a part of. You demonstrate this nicely below, I don't understand why you don't get it here?
My analogy fits perfectly. People don't vote at shareholder meetings on whether a company will break a law or not. This is something that just isn't allowed, it creates an intent on breaking the law and often would allow prosecution even if a law hasn't been broken. They aren't permitted by law to vote in a fashion like that. Don't assume they do, to do so is only misleading the conversation.
I believe I said Unless you took part in something illegal, why should you be held for someone else's actions? You would be the crime boss in this example and you did take part in something illegal. Telling someone to whack an old lady and all the witnesses is illegal. It is not the same actions as someone who invests money in a company and doesn't have any say in the day to day operation where someone breaks a law. Now, if you were in charge and told someone in the company to break the law, then you should be held accountable. But that isn't what we are talking about.
I don't exactly know where your going with this. I get lost every time I read it. However, there is one point I want to make. Profiting isn't illegal. It doesn't encourage braking a law or illegal activity. Some people break laws to profit, they aren't getting shielded by anything. They aren't innocent of the action that was illegal.
Your confusing the regulation of a corporation with the forming of one. I don't doubt that a corporation can collect large amounts of power. However, regulating the actions of a corporation has to be weighed with the rights of the owners who the corporation serves. When you clamp down on the corporation, you are in fact clamping down on the owners of that corpora