Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk

Posted by Zonk on from the battening-down-the-hatches dept.

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."

23 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. What's the problem? by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Troll? Sounds like we've got some rather childish folks wielding moderator points today. The parent post made an excellent point. This is corporate strategy that should be kept secret - huge sums of money ride on generating successful buzz. If a competitor got ahold of this information they could do such things as cutting their price and announcing it the day before to make the other company appear reactionary.

      That may appear to be big things - but what if you were a stock holder who knew this was going to happen, etc etc. They ARE big things. This was a violation of company trust. The violator should be fired, if nothing else. They have every right to find out who did it.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, quite.

      When will people get it through their thick skulls that just because you don't agree with something, it's not necessarily a troll or flamebait.

      Personally, I think Troll and Flamebait are useless and just cause trouble. They provide nothing but hurt feelings and arguments, when overrated, offtopic, wrong or unfunny would suffice. /. really does need wrong and unfunny moderations though.

      --
      No Comment.
    3. Re:What's the problem? by Quila · · Score: 4, Informative

      The anti-business hippies are out there, anything that screws "tha man" is a Good Thing. I've been maxxed on karma for years, so I'm not too worried.

      I also don't think this case is equivalent to the Best Buy case as mentioned in the article. CC is trying to get to the trade secret thief. Best Buy tried to claim copyright on the information posted at Fat Wallet and sent a DMCA takedown notice to the web site itself. The problem is you can't copyright information (see the Feist decision), so the Best Buy's actions were fraudulent.

    4. Re:What's the problem? by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists"
      That's stretching the definition of "journalist" a bit thin.

      Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court.
      I'd bet CC already tried an internal investigation to try to catch the guy, and the court is a last resort. Money's on he works somewhere in relation to the companies that CC contracts to print the ads.
    5. Re:What's the problem? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      So in your opinion it's better to lay off a bunch of innocent people than to request the log files from a website? It's better for a bunch of people with family's to get laid off, possibly lose their house, car, etc than it is to request the log files from a website... glad you aren't in charge of the world.

      And just so you know, a subpoena is a LEGAL court order to turn over records, which is completely different than suing.

    6. Re:What's the problem? by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seems to me some moderators need to reread (if they read at all) the moderators guide and mod to promote instead of demote. I'll apologise right now for being offtopic in this thread, but I thought this merited a reply. I tend to get mod points about once a week or so, and do my best to moderate fairly and judiciously. In fact, I can only recall modding a post "flamebait" once, and that post thoroughly deserved the mod. That said, I also try to maintain a 1:1 relationship between moderating and meta-moderating sessions, as the system must be self-correcting for poor mods. For you, and those like you who believe that the moderation system is periodically abused, please take the time to meta-moderate and give some feedback. Sure, for all I know the feedback goes straight into Slashdot's /dev/null but I figure trying to provide some oversight to the mod system beats just complaining about it.

      cheers.
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    7. Re:What's the problem? by Applekid · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about a (+1 Everyone Is Special) moderation?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    8. Re:What's the problem? by 2names · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wish there was a way to go back to your own old posts and mod yourself down.

      I have re-read posts of mine and thought, "What the hell was I thinking?"

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    9. Re:What's the problem? by Quila · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Third parties get subpoenaed all the time to provide evidence in cases. Basically, if you have any relevant, specific information to any case, civil or criminal, it is your responsibility to give it up. If the information is sensitive you can get a protective order for it. About the only excuse I can think of right now for not giving it up is attorney-client privilege, and I don't see that applying here.

      I HATE seeing the "privacy" shield being thrown up in cases like this. It denigrates the term for everyone else who is really fighting for privacy, not just trying to evade culpability for their illegal actions.

    10. Re:What's the problem? by tsheriffk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      is this really a corporate secret though? Anyone ever wonder why all name brand electronics are the same price whereever you go? All these items have MAP (minimum advertised price) restrictions that they must adhere to. All this means is that ALL retailers will be able to sell the PS3 for the new lower MAP price. Just because it leaked out of a CC ad, this price reduction is not going to be a CC only sale. I know i am assuming a bit on my last statement, but obviously unless they are doind one of those "instant rebate" type of sales, this price reduction would have been made by everyone. In addition, anyone that purchased the device ahead of the sale could get a price match, so they arent going to be making any more money on this is the info doesnt leak out. There is a lot of hoopla over nothing on this, where although CC is probably within their rights to seek out who is leaking it, are they really going to accomplish anything positive? Now all the gamers are pissed at them. I am sure they would still purchase from CC if they have the best price on stuff in the future, but if prices are the same they may be skipped over for an online or "less evil" (in their minds) retailer. And in the age of MAP pricing, how often are their really huge deals at one retailer over another?

    11. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Newspaper ads do not constitute trade secrets. Internal memos MIGHT, but a sheet of paper you print MILLIONS of for the express purpose of handing out to the public does not.

  2. Is it worth it? by RichPowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Is it worth it? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you were forced to see the ad at the proper time, the deals would become no less money-saving. Posting the ad early does not suddenly make the deal better, nor occur sooner. If that is true, then the converse must be true too (after all it is a zero-sum game) - his viewing the ad early does not cause the deals to be any less expensive for Circuit City.

      Stopping these early postings do nothing but protect the company from illegal information leaks. If, by your own assertion, these leaks have no impact, then what interest does Circuit City have in preventing them? Even if they are "illegal" (a huge leap of faith on your part), if they have no impact, then what protection does Circuit City need?
    2. Re:Is it worth it? by huckda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the deals would become no less money-saving excepting the notion that perhaps one could not arrange time of work to hit the deal early(as in limited quantities of items)..
      then you are out the savings and maybe even the product until it drops within your buying price range once again...
      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    3. Re:Is it worth it? by eric76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is the likelihood that he has signed any kind of confidentiality agreement with Circuit City?

      If has signed no confidentiality agreement, are his actions criminal?

    4. Re:Is it worth it? by zoward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last Christmas, CAG's members donated over $10,000 to Child's Play. We're not misers, we just want good deals on videogames.

      --
      "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
  3. I'm an anti-business hippy, you insensitive clod by spun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:"Trade Secret" by dmpyron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Very much a trade secret. If the documents were properly labeled, that is. Too often a company will claim "trade secret" without treating it as such. It has to be marked with something that indicates that it's private and proprietary. Like having those words stamped on it. I've been doing this game for a long time.

    Now, if I was said poster, I'd be using a Yahoo email address with all fake data and posting from free hotspots.

  5. Re:What's good for the goose... by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The claim may not be that all forum members are journalists... But that some might be.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  6. Re:I'm an anti-business hippy, you insensitive clo by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA.

    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.

  7. Re:Oh Lawd by Boone^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with you, but most companies like Best Buy have 14 day price protection. The guy posting the ads probably screwed up, but in reality only cost the amount of $$ from purchasers who wouldn't have gotten their partial refund.

  8. not so fast by m2943 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.