Slashdot Mirror
Etoy: It's Not Over Yet
It's one thing to drop a lawsuit. It's another to "move away" from it. According to Chris Truax, the lawyer for the Etoy art group, which version the media heard depended on what time they were in touch with the eToys management. The initial version, he claims, was that eToys was dropping the suit. A later version was that they were "backing away" from the suit. A third version reassured the press that a precondition specified in the legal document was never intended to be a demand - only a request.
To see how the coverage changed throughout Wednesday, see the first Wired story, then the NYT/CNET story, the Yahoo/TheStandard story, and then the second Wired story.
The problem was that eToys.legal was not working from the same playbook as eToys.PR. The precondition, clearly a showstopper, also calls into question whether the giant toy firm has a clue about what is really at stake.
That precondition was:
"to give good faith consideration, as our neighbor on the Internet, to concentrating the profanity, nudity and violence that is sometimes part of the etoy corporation message on etoy corporation's other websites."
Asking artists to censor their work, of course, flies like a lead wheelbarrow. At the same time the company spokesman was saying "our intent was never to silence free artistic expression," their legal team was doing precisely that. The entire short letter in which this request was made was focused on finding a resolution to the perceived problem of "profanity, nudity, and violence," and concluded by noting that co-existence was possible if "etoy corporation will respond favorably to this proposal."
The later Wired story quotes eToys management as putting this spin on it:
"This is a simple, straightforward, good-faith effort on our part to resolve this matter. We are asking that they make good-faith efforts to put some of the material that kids and parents might find offensive on another part of the site."
They can repeat the words "good faith" all they like, but that doesn't make this any less censorship. Imagine operating as an artist, knowing that for the rest of your tenure with the Etoy art group you must work very carefully not to put material inappropriate for children too close to your homepage. One use of the F-word already led to this lawsuit; how hair-trigger would the lawyers be the second time around? You'd want to tone down your message, lest you be accused of working in "bad faith."
But maybe this letter was just badly worded; perhaps there was a miscommunication somewhere between the PR and the legal departments.
Or, maybe this whole episode was a cynical attempt to calm down the activist community and get the story out of the public eye.
Think about what eToys is really saying. They have cost the art group a fair amount of money in legal bills and have shut down their website for (to date) a month. Now they say they want to walk away as long as Etoy does the same.
If someone came onto your property, stole your computer - and then a month later, after you'd spent thousands of dollars trying to get it back, offered to return it on the condition that you promised not to sue - would you be inclined to accept that condition?
How would you feel if they asked you to make a "good-faith effort" not to use your computer to write any "profanity"?
Chris Truax stopped short of saying whether Etoy would or would not continue their defensive countersuit if eToys' original suit were dropped, saying only "if the suit is dropped unilaterally, that's a very positive step." In my talks with him, he has seemed committed to finding a way to settle this matter without resorting to a knock-down, drag-out court battle, and he has said he'd like to help eToys management to educate themselves about being good netizens.
But he also pointed out several times that "the devil is in the details." And, of course, he's right. This whole mess won't be over until it's over.
It's a shame that the courts are still seeing issues like these at the end of 1999; those in positions of power should have learned about being good netizens by now. Etoy's story isn't all that unusual. While the art group has been under fire, there have been simultaneous attacks on the scholarly arts organization Leonardo and a computer club which happens to share the same initials as the BBC. Stay tuned.
That web site had a lady's ankle visible! Horrors!
Even if etoy.com was a hard core porn site, etoys should have no moral or legal rights to do what they did. etoy.com is not bound by US laws. At most, US authorities might someday take it upon themselves selectively ban "incoming" material thru filtering techniques etc (which in itself would be a horrendous state of affairs), but there is no justification for suspending registration of the etoy.com domain. THEY HAVE NO FUCKING JURISDICTION. (Now slashdot will have to shut down for offensive language.)
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
I ahve and idea.... why dont WE all sue Etyos with supid things like "not allowing access to the site for blind and deaf people" or "the animations on their site gave me a seizure" or "I did'nt get my package on time and it ruined my life" (the last of which I am sure we can find someone who did'nt get their package on time this christmas)
Etoy is in a position of strength. eToys' trademark application was overturned, Etoy was there first, eToys is backing down, it's time to fight the hell out of this in many ways. This should go to court, and eToys will almost definitely lose. Then Etoy could proceed with their lawsuit and have eToys by the short hairs. Imagine the dive Etoys' stock would take then. Etoy needs to fight this one to the extent possible. Many good things could come of it. Other corporations may reconsider bullying the little guys, a precedent just might be set, and Etoys would learn that they can't throw their little weight.com around just becaused they've IPO'd.
IANNBAL (I am nowhere near being a lawyer),
but it strikes me that etoy has a helluva counter-suit if they wish to do so. If any of them
make any income from etoy.com, it's at least
deprivation of livelihood.
How many times is a big corperation (the #3 holiday toy seller) true to its word? Very rarely...
Of course eToys will continue to attack eToy. The reasoning behind that statement is simple - The Calendar. eToys, does not want eToy active during the Holiday season because newbies on the internet may acidentally go there... So they will try and shut it down once and for all rather than just knock it out during every big sale period.
Am I missing something?
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
Things like this will just keep popping up if we don't make an example of eToys. We need to raise such a big stink that the media picks up on it and eToys gets bad publicity. If they start loosing customers left and right they will listen, believe me. The unofficial rules of the net are made by us users as a whole.
It is not enough that they drop the lawsuit. They have gotten what they wanted, to have etoy.com down for the xmas season. Next year they'll find some other excuse.
This "cyber-squatting" crap needs to end. A general mentality of "oh, that's another domain, check the spelling" needs to be instated, since pressing legal violation over domain names is outrageous. I really believe someone has to pass this message over to the corporations, and AFAIK the only directly effective method is through the government.
the real at&t mix
That they talk about material inapropriate for children is just bullshit, a naked attempt to try to appear the good guy. No doubt EToys has some oily PR people who came up with that one. I dearly hope their tactic doesn't work. I expect they'll next try to get the "Family Values" folks on their side for the upcomming PR battle.
It may be a pipe dream, but I hope that enough folks in the public get furious enough over this that EToys is shamed out of business.
Or, better yet does the right arm care what the left one is doing? I honestly do not think that the management of EToys has any idea of what being a good netizen means. And that is why it is very important that their actions are discussed in open forms (i.e. /.) and that their actions against EToy stay visible in the news.
The complaints from Etoy may be easy enough to ignore, but the roar of the crowd of the community is much more difficult to turn a deaf ear to.
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
The root of this whole mess are the facts that EToys has money, NSI has control over DNS, and the US justice system has more than its reasonable share of ignorant jurisdiction over the Internet. It's a fact that if Etoy's and EToys' positions were reversed, that EToys' domain name would not have been impounded. This needs to be publicized outside of regular Internet news outlets to inform the public of yet another area of activity where money and influence yields undeserved/unnecessary/unethical power.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
Protest.net's overview of this mess
RTMarks's etoy page
ETOYS stock value in the past month accoring to Alta Vista
A better stock picture from yahoo.
At this rate, ETOYS will be worthless soon enough. How low does it have to fall before it simply ceases to exist in it's current form? In this age of internet stocks being so highly valued how can ETOYS not realize the damage this has caused them? How can they be so blind?
Perhaps they have forgotten that we talk to each other. Perhaps they have forgotten that we can hear all sides of the stories. perhaps they have forgotten that we could have been their market and their investors had they not done this.
Perhaps they're just blind.
No Zen is good zen
I'd ask if anyone was surprised at this, but judging from the posts yesterday, ("Oh yay, EToys has changed their mind, they're good guys again") I guess the answer is yes.
EToys never claimed to be dropping the suit--only "backing off," which means, precisely, whatever they want it to. Trying to censor in good faith is apparently what they meant by backing off.
If this is ever resolved satisfactorily, I urge everyone who has been boycotting EToys to _continue_ the boycott. They deserve (and have from the beginning) punitive measures brought against them for the damage they've done to the etoy group.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Not only does etoys have no right to shut down etoy because it is outside of US control, but etoy.com was registered before etoys was even thought of!
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
It really is unfortunate that things went in this direction. We all know that Etoy was there first, and the case should be very clear; things don't always work out the way you expect them.
How so?
I'd imagine that the claims of conspiracy (the Xmas fiasco) have quite a bit of merit, but somehow I predict that this will ring the same responses. Who's to say that EToys didn't *say* they were backing off to fix their public image, all while their legal department had a field day with Etoy. It is a possibility.
Since this is an old issue, isn't there something we can do about it? Contacting Etoys with nice well-thought-out responses would always be nice, but I mean a more "fit to print" solution. We're a pretty big community, but the fact of the matter is that we're a specific group that is no target. But we do have access to other people. Why not have our own publicity campaign that actually releases the facts of this case, and tell as many friends as we can about what is going on.
Our power will be completely wasted if we don't use it to hit them where it counts, and why they started this whole thing: In their pocketbook. The proposed boycott isn't enough if it's only us... we need more. This is enough indication that at least their legal department just doesn't get it.
So make them.
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
How about a countersuit claiming product recognition problems and trademark dilution? If the domain name was there first, and the trademark status favors etoy, they should just go for the jugular and bring down etoys.com altogether.
good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
IF eToys argument is "hey, do what you like, but can you keep the stuff that's age-inappropriate off the public pages", then I don't see the problem. Anyone capable of setting up a web page is more than capable of setting up an .htaccess file, and anyone capable of thought is capable of deciding if something is "age-inappropriate".
That's not censorship, as it doesn't tell anyone what they can do or say, it merely says "uh - can everyone agree to be mature about this?" I don't see anything the matter with that. It doesn't hurt to use your noggin.
But that's a BIG "if", and the implication of the article was that their legal department didn't necessarily think the same way.
If the eToys argument is that "you show what we say, and nothing more", then they deserve to be forced to eat Haggis, Black Pudding and mushy peas, with HP sauce. On National Television. Without throwing up. Even after being told what goes in them.
I don't agree with censorship, but I don't have any problem with two web sites trying to find some kind of common ground so that they can talk this over like human beings.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
ETOYS DROPS SUIT AGAINST ARTISTS. Public outcry led toy site to abandon action against artists using eToy.com.
Uh huh... "dropped" the lawsuit eh? Ya don't say. I wonder how much this "ad space" cost Etoys? :)
---
Ok, I just registered slashdots.org, where I'm going to sell kitty litter. Please limit all further discussions on this site to kitty litter...
http://billy.j.mabray/
human://billy.j.mabray/
"Every good system has a backup." -- Dale Hanchey
I thought that Kb and Toys R Us were bigger than that and a hell of a lot more.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Sorry about the last empty message. I've pressed the enter buttons twice too many.
;) company basically have nothing other than their brand name, i.e., "www.etoys.com". They haven't made any profit yet. They don't have much asset. If they lose this domain, basically, their business is more or less over (and gone with their overpriced stock). I know. Although they also own "www.toys.com", I doubt that it is as famous as the other one.
Although I think that it's only my dream, is there a way for etoy to stop etoys using their domain name? Etoys the (evil
Do they have something vulnerable behind all those bluffings and posturing?
I'm not sure how many other people follow this show, but Michael Moore (of 'Roger and Me', 'The Big One', and 'TV Nation') has a show that's been running for a season now called The Awful Truth, where he goes after assorted cases of corporations sticking it to the little guy. I emailed him through the website for the show (http://www.theawfultruth.com), and received this response:
>Thanks so much for writing about the etoy.com >story. Michael Moore greatly appreciates your >support and forwarded your letter on to me to >respond to. He thanks you for bringing this >story to his attention and has asked that the >subject be researched further.
>Mr. Moore showed a great interest in this story >and asked me to keep it on file for possible show >segment topic. He is currently extremely busy >with pre-production for the second season of "The >Awful Truth," however he wanted me to convey his >best wishes.
Looks like a form letter, but if he gets enough interest in the story, he might be more interested in doing it, and it could get us some more of the right kind of coverage.
I have been to a few sites that basically have similar urls to a major company (plus or minus a few letters) and they have a little message saying that basically "are you looking for blah.com? well go there) and such with a link in bold. Then all you have to do is to have another large link that allows for the people who really wanted to go to etoy or whatever to go there if they want with just one more click. This would have solved the problem without the need for lost revenue. I don't know about you people but after the first few days of no utilities and no food in a cold dark house I would be looking at any solution.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
The only reason for eToys to exist is to make lots of money quickly using a tried-and-true formula: pick a commodity product and try to build a brand and web site around it quickly, using excessive stock valuations to subsidize an otherwise money losing business.
So, from a company like that and from people who are attracted to running that kind of company, what can you expect? Do you really think they are going to play fair in court? I suspect if they see an opportunity to make their brand name more unique, to crush a competitor, or gain any other kind of advantage, as long as it is legal, they are going to do it. Baseless lawsuits and inaccurate PR releases seem entirely consistent with that kind of company.
The only thing that is going to stop them is something that threatens their pocketbook or their brand name.
Nuff said.
A company sees its stock dropping, hate mail pours in, and threats of DoS attacks on thier networks are looming over thier heads.
Why not try to weasel yourself out of a situation?
They're just like children. You punish them, but when you're not around, they do the same thing all over again.
The next step? Punish them again. They learn eventually.
Now, If someone told you that in 1997, Etoys bought every domain name they could muster with the letter E and the phrase "toy" or "toys", would it surprise you? No, perhaps not - It seems like a reasonably self-preserving business practice. However, If you knew you owned the domain E-toy.com and made efforts to shut down Etoy.com, Would it seem unreasonable for you to gain traffic to your own site by visitors mistyping E-toy instead of Etoy?
:>
Making gains off of another group's losses (that you created) seems incredibly unreasonable and dishonest to me. Perhaps we ought to encourage some kind of countersuit falling along these lines... Even with no chance to beat the financial backbone of Etoys' legal team, it would at least get the press riled up and put the spotlight on Etoys...
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
So basically just pick another domain registering company and get etoy up again. If the NSI wants to be vile about it then just go somewhere else. Exactly where is etoy operating from anyway?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
eToys apparently still doesn't get it. Internet was never meant to be a shopping mall. Yes, commerce can succeed in this medium, but that does not neccesarily make this a shopping mall.
Internet is a neighborhood. This means that there's a great variety of resources here. Sure, there's stores, and some of them make a lot of money. There are also gathering places, theatres (some of them pretty bleeding-edge, like etoy), workshops, and homes. This neighborhood has been here, and has grown, long before eToys ever came on the scene. Now, eToys is saying, "We want this neighborhood to become a shopping mall." And they'll tear down the whole damn neighborhood to do it.
Ultimately what these companies want is not a bazaar, not a whole new world, not a new medium of communication; but a virtual suburb. Where everything is clean (or else), there are no angry people, no controversial opinions or expressions, and everyone is free, so long as what they want to do is make money. A virtual suburb that is safe for sheltered suburban children raised in good Mayburyish homes, where they can learn that Internet is safe, inoffensive, secure, protected. A virtual suburb where you don't find anything that might even vaguely disturb you. Where the music is soothing, the pictures are pretty, and you can make your dreams come true by entering your credit card number and expiration date. Don't worry, that information, along with all your other information, won't be handed off to anyone who might hurt you (just to other people who want to sell to you).
There's just one problem. Even if they get their way, it's all pure bullshit. Internet is not secure, will never be secure. Real life is full of controversey, different ideas, and shocking truths. If they get shoved off of Internet, they'll just move to another network, albeit perhaps a more exclusive one (think back to the BBS days). Moreover, the information you hand out is not safe. The difference is, today, if it's not safe, you'll find out quickly. Tomorrow, if it's not safe, you may never find out. Not unless you're on one of those BBS'es. Or unless it's already too late.
It doesn't have to turn out this way. We can win this fight. We're smart enough; together, we're rich enough; and we have enough to lose to keep us motivated in this fight.
As a note, I noticed today that eToys stock is at a 52-week low. Maybe it's time eToys figured out a new strategy?
Finding God in a Dog
" Do you want your children to look for etoys and somehow accidentally land on etoy.com which material not appropriate for children (profanity, nudity, graphic nature, adult content)??? Etoys even offered a generous offer of ($400,00-1mil) to etoy to change their name because it won't be very logical to change etoys.com because it is actually selling children's toys!!! So Etoys.com launched a law suit against etoy.com on behalf of the numerous complaints from angry parents. Hell, I would be angry too if my kids ask me what the hell is on the art site...and it has nothing to do with the toy. I hope the boycotters can explain theie positions on the issue to me, as I support etoys 100% in their cause. "
It's like a red rag to a bull... :-)
But seriously, if you read the posts on the trading boards, you do start to realise that a lot of the people who are supporting (not particularly well at present) the value of companies such as etoys really don't have a clue about what is going on with the situation at all.
So remember be polite...
The only Good System is a Sound System
No-one sues anyone.
EToys gives Etoy an apology and a large sum of money.
In return, Etoy puts a prominent link to Etoys on their homepage, away from any "I-led-far-too-sheltered-a-life" material.
Everybody gets on with their lives.
After all, nothing compromises artistic integrity like a huge wad of cash...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I just would like to wonder why anyone actually bother with toys anyway? If you are involved with computers you most likely are not playing with that new Pikachu action figure instead of writing that new device driver for that video card you boss wants anyway.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Speaking frankly, and keep in mind I'm not a securities trader or a financial analyst or a lawyer or whatever...for a long time, eToys was worth more than Mattel and Hasbro combined. That's the two largest toy makers in the US. As of today, eToys is worth less than either Mattel or Hasbro, even if only by a little. This makes more sense. eToys's income is far, far less than that of either company, and eToys is less established. If you ask me, this is probably just a correction, and a much-needed one.
It's true that their stock is almost at a 52-week low. But this doesn't necessarily mean that they're mishandling the business. I would be very surprised if investors started suing them over this.
Finding God in a Dog
Etoys has anatomically correct dolls! What are they teaching our children!
a real zero.
To get to the point the results of this case are landmark - and we shall probably see the end of etoys.com because of it eventually anyways.
As a culture we see that lay people are upset when hearing this because it violates freedom of speech. Not someones oddball interpretation of the first amendment but people are starting to truly want to be informed not only because they can be but because they want to be.
People everywhere are seeing internet companies as (from time to time) just that - nothing more and nothing less. If company A sues company B about an issue of "morality" -- and questionable at that then they have no "morality" themselves. Corporations aren't evil - just some of them have evil people (tm).
Watching the etoys stock as a whole - it reflects that bad press because of a stupid issue also reflect what a public company is all about. The fact here is that they did not do what the public wanted, but what they wanted... so the public hammered them (badly).
Etoy will end up countersuing them and possibly even the court that granted the injunction siting that there is no legislation that allows for this type of legal action to actually take place. Regardless this will be a big win for freedom of speech and also a big win for any artist...
If art is about making a stand for what you believe then these artists are being true martyrs - and nobody (except etoys) can possibly loose this battle.
If I operate a convent bestiality porn site or I operate a site for Barney and his little friends makes no difference. If you give money to someone for a service then you are obgligated by law to give them that service or give a total refund. If a person is refused from being able to get a service that is open to others and the others are not under similar restrictions then you are in fact descriminating against them and that is also against the law and you can file a suit. I would also be suing NSI for their predatory and descriminatory actions.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
see above
Hear this, ETOYS: I will never, ever buy from, visit, or link to, your shitty site. I will never invest in your friggin company. If I am ever asked my opinion about you, nearby mothers will clamp their hands over childrens ears approx 1 second after I begin responding. I hope you all manage to die choking on liquid shit somehow. FUCK YOU.
I hope etoy sues the balls, ass, and any other painful-to-lose part off of etoys. And I hope someone with a shotgun and baseball bat pays every employee of etoys a visit. DAMN ETOYS TO HELL!
And when i wrote my protest mail to eToys.com, that's exactly what i told them... i am a parent of five year old twins, our family is well within the top 10% income bracket, and we regularly purchase goods online. And if they want a share of the hundreds of dollars a year i spend on toys, they need to drop their complaints against etoy.
Which reminds me... i should send them another letter telling them that i won't be satisfied until they have unilaterally and unconditionally dropped everything against etoy.
---
120
chars is barely sufficient
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
The etoys site is claiming that Etoys is a registered trademark. Wasn't it overturned? Shouldn't NSI resurrect the etoy site because there are no longer any trademark issues?
BTW Is there an etoy legal fund?
Imagine yourself as a high-priced executive at EToys, watching the whole house of cards about to come tumbling down and render your stock options into just so much toilet paper. Wouldn't YOU resort to any dirty trick you could think to try to keep the stock values up?
I think everyone who reads about this bullshit should go to:m enupage=1&pagename=t10
http://www.etoys.com/cgi-bin/cs_print_page.cgi?
and send etoys.com a little comment.. i sure did, hehehe....
I think a little trip over to lego would do just nicely or maybe toys r us. I don't know what to do about the "bright and shiny" part maybe some furniture polish on a oak cofee table might do the trick or perhaps pyrite I hear that works well for shiny and fooled a great deal of people :)
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
"or lack thereof" "whatnot" STOP SAYING THEM! NO ONE LIKES TO HEAR YOU TRY TO SOUND SMART uSING STUPID MONKEY WORDS!!
Hmmm...I own an avant garde theatre for a couple of years. You move in next door, open a toy store and then ask me to stop producing radical plays because it frightens some of the toystore customers.
If eToys didn't want to be associated with etoy, they should have thought of that before spending millions marketing their asinine name.
$ ping www.etoys.com
PING www.etoys.com (204.71.184.166) from 24.94.136.251 : 56(84) bytes of data.
From pos0-0-0.hr3.SNV2.gblx.net (206.132.254.218): Packet filtered
From pos0-0-0.hr3.SNV2.gblx.net (206.132.254.218): Packet filtered
From pos0-0-0.hr3.SNV2.gblx.net (206.132.254.218): Packet filtered
From pos0-0-0.hr3.SNV2.gblx.net (206.132.254.218): Packet filtered
--- www.etoys.com ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, +4 errors, 100% packet loss
bilbo baggins would kick geoffrey giraffes ass :)
[w00t@freaky.bish]# rm
I would imagine that Etoys probably thinks that having Etoy shock art just one character away from the Etoys childrens section is like having Howard Stern come on the TV right after Sesame Street. I know that Etoy is not a pornography site, but none the less at times it has material that requires parental guidance.
Now I know that most of the people reading this are smart enough to become web-millionaires just by staying up late a few nights coding HTML. Surely you don't think it is that big a deal to take anything unsuitable for children off of the main page and place it where you must willfuly navigate to get ot it. Does this really impose on the freedoms of all you net-savy individuals? Does this really censor the artists?
So what if etoy.com had the domain name first. I don't agree with Etoys initial tactics of trying to crush etoy, but it seems that the situation has moved beyond that now.
Should anything be allow on Main Street in the metaverse, or should there be some zoning bylaws to seperate childrens toys stores from adult performance art?
http://www.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,144162-311,00. shtml
Now, back to our regular program.
of course, that to shoud be a from.
Please consider demanding a public apology from Etoys as well.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
He just knows how easy it is to get another sig when this one wears out.
That's life, eh?
Don't make etoy do the work that you should be doing.
Etoy should put a PICS rating tag on their site, and concerned parents should use the features built into their browsers to dissallow access to these sites.
This would solve any "accidental" access. If someone was determined to get there, they'd get around anything anyway.
YMSOCC
For the acronym impaired:
You may suck our collective cocks
There is something fundamentally wrong with our legal (and moral) system when something like this happens and is not thrown out of the legal system as 'frivilous'. Has any though ben given, or action taken, to mount a legal defense fund for Etoy given the current situation? Some sort of precidence must be set if we are to prevent similar occurances in the future. It might be in our (Netizens), best intrest to take E-Toys to task for what they've done on thier own ground (i.e. legally). My $.02
I think most of us are in agreement that eToys is providing a prime example of poor Net citizenship. But who are the lawyers who are advising them? What blind, old, senile law firm told eToys it was a good idea to go fight a turf war over domain names? I don't think eToys is blameless by a long shot, but they aren't the only bad guys here. If eToys goes down in flames, it may serve as an object lesson to the next IPO who thinks his money means that he is automatically right. But shouldn't there also be some pressure brought to bear on the law firms who undertake this sort of foolishness, too? The lawyers who are advising these companies and filing these suits should also pay attention, and learn not to lead their clients into similar situations.
According to eToys' stock history, they've dropped from almost $80/share to ~$25.50/share.
Does anyone have a really credible analysis on this? I found some ideas over at the Red Herring. Toys R Us is down to $14.13, $10 off its yearly high. The entire online toy purchasing industry is suffering from a lack of confidence, resulting (reportedly) from their inability to fill toy orders on time.
While customers of other toy makers (Toys R Us) and KBKids professed (at a rate exceeding 40%) they wouldn't shop there again, the rate of terminal dissatisfaction with eToys is 12%.
My prediction is that eToys' stock will rebound. The eToys death watch will be an excruciatingly slow event and will suffer quite an ugly setback as eToys (in my non-investor prediction) gets out of the hospital bed around early Spring, the time by which eToys will most likely have gotten their butts in gear with regards to meeting customer orders. They will either have more efficient fulfillment techniques, or customers will buy earlier, but in either case this major depressant upon their stock value will be lifted away by April.
So is there cause for despair? Yes and no. Surely we cannot avoid eating a few crow feathers here and there when eToys' stock rebounds. But the way to keep the whole crow from being stuffed down, i.e. the way to keep their stock from rebounding too far, and perhaps even drag it down to sub-$20 levels, is rather clear.
1) If you know of any online artist groups, inform them about the eToy vs eToys issue. The artist community does not suffer this crap very easily.
2) If you know of any non-online artist groups of any sort - stores, galleries, you name it - let them know, also.
There is the more drastic and difficult theory, also:
3) Gather donations and fund an ad in USA Today, documenting the tragedy of eToys' attack on etoy.com. Express it as an attack on artistic free expression by means fraudulent legal tactics (false patent claims, etc.), under an atmosphere of judicial ignorance favoring the biggest-mouthed, deepest-pocketed lawyers. Call for a boycott on eToys.com.
You have to find ways to create massive tides of bad press for eToys - this and this alone will create a major dampener on their stock value. This should start right now, while their stock is down, so as to depress the upcoming rebound as eToys prepares a mission plan to prevent their previous customer fulfillment failures from happening again.
Now I've checked USA Today for their information on the costs of a full page ad, and the rates are almost $11,000 for a 1/16 page ad, up to $81K for a full pager. It ain't cheap. Of course the bigger the ad the more people are going to notice it, but I think even at 1/16th page it is still going to cause major press, and grab the attention of a lot of people.
What do y'all think?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
So basically what this means is that I can start my own toy chain, say... "Playtoy.com" (assuming that weren't already taken). Does that mean that I'm within my rights to "suggest" that Playboy.com start keeping it's adult oriented content on some other URL?
Really now....
We represent the interests of CrashDot.org Inc. & Co. It has come to our attention that your site, slashdot.org, may be willfully infringing upon our trademark(s) and intentionally misleading the public.
CrashDot.org Inc. & Co. is an established e-commerce firm (as of Dec. 30th, 1999) with market capitilization of over $259.6 billion USD. As the premiere retailer of konkey widgets online, we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our intelectual property from unlawful individuals such as yourself.
We request that you take your website, slashdot.org, offline immediately and delete any and all files relating to the site in any manner whatsoever. You will also be responsible for removing each and every link on the Internet that points to slashdot.org or any of its pages. Failure to comply will result in a mega-huge monster of a lawsuit -- don't fuck with us, we've got more money than you do.
If slashdot.org is not disabled within 12 seconds of this posting, we will contact Network Solutions Inc. and have them pull the plug. Then we will procede with the lawsuit.
Please contact your legal department if you have any questions. (Don't bother with the PR department, they know nothing. Buncha monkeys think we've been keeping good relations with you folks for months, and have even offered to buy your domain name for a huge sum of cash. Ha, what morons.)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
The CrashDot.org Inc. & Co. Legal Team.
I hope none of you think any less of me for throwing my arms up in dispare and just quiting my futile attempt to understand legalities :(
I took the liberty of e-mailing eToys from all three of my e-mail accounts today, e-mailing them different letters which all said the same basic thing: I've read an e-mail forward about your distasteful actions relating to etoy.com, and sent it on to dozens of friends, and your business is going to be fscked not to mention the fact that etoy.com is going to be very wealthy after the countersuit. E-mail them at service@etoys.com -- and they also have a web-based form for reporting "problems with the site" atm enupage=1&pagename=t9
m enupage=1&pagename=t10
http://www.etoys.com/cgi-bin/cs_print_page.cgi?
and a "feedback" web-based form at
http://www.etoys.com/cgi-bin/cs_print_page.cgi?
I suggest everyone utilize them all.
And, by all means--*write all your non-slashdot friends some e-mail forwards about this matter*. Forwards are usually a pain in the a*s, but this is one of those times when grassroots action is necessary and e-mail forwards will help. Imagine if thousands of people start, and continue, e-mailing etoys.com about how disgusting their harassment of etoy.com is.
And, not that I'm advocating going *this* far, but if anyone should happen to have access to computers to which he can't be tied--well, it would be easy enough to make them call the eToys 800 numbers with their modems continuously...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Then the US would have no jurisdiction at all over them, not even via NSI.
Grrr.
I would imagine that Etoys probably thinks that having Etoy shock art just one character away from the Etoys childrens section is like having Howard Stern come on the TV right after Sesame Street.
No, it's much more like having Howard Stern come on MTV (or whatever channel he's on) at the same time that Sesame Street is on PBS, and then PBS shuts MTV down because a few kids press the wrong buttons on the remote.
Should anything be allow on Main Street in the metaverse, or should there be some zoning bylaws to seperate childrens toys stores from adult performance art?
It is eToys that should have to work around this problem. They "moved in next to" Etoy, they have to live with what was already there. Following your analogy, they moved into the area that was zoned "adult performance art" and now want it to be changed to "childrens". If they want this problem solved, they really need to move out of the zone they're in, not change how their current location is zoned.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that if etoys is really only concerned with decency then why don't they go after other domains similar to theirs that seem to be, well, more indecent?
/. and make some sort of organized and focused move against this kind of crap. How? Hell if I know! But if I come up with any ideas I'll be sure to let you know.
For example, eboys.com (it's "under construction" now, but who know what it could be -- it COULD be naughty)
Or may eroys.com? R is only one key to the left of T and it's not at all hard to imagine someone (a kid maybe) going there by accident. If you click on one of the three the "adult" links on that page you're in for an amusing surprise.
On the other hand, etoys has grabbed up etoys.net, etoys.org, eyoys.com, etoyz(net, com, and org) (and I'm sure many more) - a whois search at Network Solutions show that etoys owns etoy.net and etoy.org, even though neither resolve to a site (maybe because it would make them look even worse in the public light?)
My point here is this: If etoys is only trying to remove profanity and help to make the net a more decent place, then why aren't they going after the animal porn which is on a url that is technically closer to theirs than etoy.com?
It's obvious that etoys is simply trying to push people around so that every conceivable misspelling of etoys will land on their page. I personally think this is sick and deplorable. They have totally surrounded etoy!! It's my opinion that etoys will force etoy to give up their domain name, one way or another.
The only way to stop this is to find some way to organize the thousands of people who read
Teaching our children, among other things, that people with dark brown skin are automatically assumed to be _American_...
Many Internet companies, in fact, buy confusable domains outright. eToys should have tried to acquire the etoy.com domain name before they got started.
Either eToys didn't do their homework, or they decided early on that they didn't care about the confusability issue. Either way, it's the responsibility of eToys, not etoy.com, no matter what etoy.com content is.
Besides, the etoy.com content doesn't seem "adult" by European standards. Why should US hangups and prudishness dictate what the rest of the world can see on the Internet?
Censorship is the wrong word. Yes, it's very loaded and makes you sound like you are fighting a grand battle..
But technically censorship only applies to the government.
Censorship means to completely quiet someone. A government can censor you by saying "Any talk using bad words is illegal"
But saying "Any talk using bad words on etoy.com will make me mad" is not censorship, because the writer still has the option of talking about bad words in numerous other forums.
I agree that etoys is acting foolishly, but please don't make this what it isn't.
eToys apparently still doesn't get it. Internet was never meant to be a shopping mall. Yes, commerce can succeed in this medium, but that does not neccesarily make this a shopping mall.
even more so, the statement released by eToy's PR asking eToy to control the content of certain parts of its site smacks of a "Well ok, we lost the battle in court, but we own the name, and people would only be going to our site and find yours, never the other way round."
which is of course entirely incorrect.
i hope eToys flounders and dies. it has shown a consistently eschewed and incomplete understanding of the Net and how it works, and has simply been allowed to stretch its ignorant muscles through massive funding, against an organisation based around culture, and then tried to silence it when it doesn't satisfy its candy-coated view of what the net should be.
ok i'm done. grr.
Fross
On the (semi) bright side, if this does go through, www.whitehouse.gov should have no problem shutting down www.whitehouse.com.
This is opening another can of worms, but etoy with art, and whitehouse.com with porn (where kids all the time enter the wrong address) are two different categories.
-=Down Syndrome in Maine
Question: Given that theoretical series of events, what right should this theoretical business be able to dictate -- or even request -- that I do anything different w/ my content that I would have done without their interference?
Answer: None! It's so simple and obvious, it's practically a natural law.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
torture is the answer
"This is a simple, straightforward, good-faith effort on our part to resolve this matter. We are asking that they make good-faith efforts to put their message that most human beings find offensive on another part of the site."
Close enough...
----------------
Overheard: "Aww, why'd you go and install Windows on a perfectly good machine?"
No editorial bias on Slashdot? Excuse me? This is one of the most biased ``news'' outlets you'll ever see!
And that's fine.
People, even people who write for the news, should have opinions. That's their job. If their job was ``just the facts'' then we might as well all just read press releases instead.
This notion of ``journalistic neutrality'' was invented by the wire services late last century in order to be able to sell their stories to both Democratic and Republican papers. They found that stories that didn't express opinions were saleable to a wider market, and so if they kept up the charade that both sides of an argument had merit, they made more money.
Sometimes both sides of an argument don't have merit. Some times one side is just wrong. Analysis of current events is the most important part of journalism, and yet today people treat it like it's a bug rather than a feature.
Getting the facts right is an important part of journalism, but so is spelling. Explaining what the facts mean is the most important part, and that usually can't be done without expressing an opinion. (Opinions being what is pejoratively refered to as ``bias'' by people who hold opposing opinions.)
Hmm... that gives me a a great idea:
- Start a web business, sell stock to other investors
- Make enemies, putting "Goodwill" into the liabilities section of the balance sheet
- As Equity approaches zero and investors bail out, buy up their stock
- Change name of company or do something else to magically make the liability go away
- Liquidate assets
- Profit!
Damn, it just might work...A friend of mine asked me if I was a bit obsessive about the etoys vs etoy issue.
No.
Try not to take the following quote out of context, I am not advocating anybodys demise, I am making a point about your business practices.
Robert Heinlein wrote in the "Notebooks of Lazurus Long": "Don't ever scare a small man, he will kill you! "
You are scaring me. I build websites for a living.
I am betting my life and that of my family, on my ability to make a living communicating my clients needs and desires to the web.
To that end, over and above what I must know to build and promote my customers sites effectively, to keep fresh as new technologies arrive, as my skills improve, devoting more time to litigation than to creation is not an option.
Your 'offer of settlement' is at best a delaying tactic, giving etoys time to recap some shareholder value by getting you off the radar screen.
Well it's not going to work.
You are not the first company to try to use checkbook litigation to have it your way, but I am devoting my time and energy to make you the last. Unlike a lot people that fill your email box with their thoughts, I am spreading word of your actions across the web in every venue I can find and can get access.
A number of people are calling for the resignation of Toby Lenk. That is a call for the board of directors to make.
The internet is unlike snug little publications, old boy networks, or the evening news. The internet offers immediacy and community. The majority of links below[1] all were created in less than thirty days since the TRO was issued.
If the internet is going to develop, having a place for all, including lawyers and toy companies, allowing everyone the ability to grow and prosper, we must not be hostage to anyones checkbook.
Since I am on the subject of checkbooks, the following suggestions may get your site off the top of the Internet Fecal Roster.This is MY Opinion. This does not constitute an offer to settle, nor does it in any way represent the views of any other than myself. This may help however.
Pick a random toy buy clicking around.
Leave a "comment" about that toy where you recomend that people do not buy from that company and why..
This has gone on to far. I have set my works dnd server to answer all look ups for etoys.com with the ip 216.167.2.21 (nettoy.com) and the owner of the isp I use has also done the same. I think that the admins of a large percentage of corp. and isp DNS servers read /. and if we all do this etoys.com will be gone.
Maybe he doesn't think the show will generate enough intrest. Perhaps a bunch of emails concering etoys would convince him to check out the story and air it?
Here is a link to the Awful Truth http://www.theawfultruth.com website.
Here is the email address awfultv@aol.com for the show.
And remember be nice we're trying to enlist this guy as a friend.
You can comment about how this "good faith" talk from eToys is nothing but bullshit (and it certainly is), but I don't think that their request is too big to swallow. What they're asking etoy.com to do is the same thing a lot of porno sites do; they put the offending material elsewhere and warn the viewer what's behind that "Enter" link. I don't think it would be a terrible burden if etoy.com would put their "questionable" material in a seperate directory with a warning stating that the material may be pornographic to some people, yadda yadda yadda more legal crap. And if little Johnny is too stupid to realize that this ain't eToys and clicks anyway, then it's little Johnny's fault. Asking etoy.com to move their material elsewhere and providing a warning is somewhat similar to asking your neighbor to turn his stereo down. There's no real censorship here, no matter how much spin you put on the story.
It would've been in eToys' advantage have done this a few weeks ago, rather than flexing their muscles and getting Network Solutions to deep-six etoy.com because some stupid kid couldn't type in the extra "s" into his browser. But hey, it's not for me to worry about.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Some other ideas:
Every city has a talk radio station, and e-commerce/business news is considered good copy these days.
CNN has their daily "Talkback Live" show.
CNBC seems to be 90% financial news.
- If these stations learned of a concerted boycott on a specific e-retailer, they might find it newsworthy.
I haven't been on the eToys site, so I don't know if they're advertising for anybody else, but if they are, it seems a good idea would be to contact the people advertising there and let them know how disappointed you are in them supporting this kind of action.
HBO has David Miller (sp?) who you can call.
MuchMusic has Speaker's Corner, I'm sure MTV has something similar.
Most local channels have some sort of web/email presence.
Write up a press release and send it to the local papers.
With the ridiculous number of outlets for news, some of them must be looking for a story.. if a bunch of people write in, they may just consider it worthy enough to cover.
Kwil
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Sure, I agree that etoys is in the wrong for the way they handled things. However, if we are talking about good netizenship here, wouldn't it also be good netizenship if etoy.com used some sort of rating system to deter audiences the material is deemed inappropriate for? I think this would remove yet another etoys leg to stand on, and the whole thing is pretty easy to implement on the etoy end.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is simply a case of a large business attempting to control and influence a smaller company. Nevermind the fact that etoy was an established site *years* before etoys. Argh. I'm getting sicker and sicker of this capitalistic bullshit.
"i'm afraid of americans"-david bowie.
-- mikeDOTd
1. Etoys threatens etoy with a suit, and also does so to network solutions 2. Etoy gets pulled by network solutions, despite there being no legal precent at work here indicating that etoys has a valid claim 3. After Dec 25, etoys retracts their claim, provided etoy does the same 4. Repeat next christmas season Why run etoy into the ground, when you cna instead bully them at your whim, particularly during seasonal upswings like christmas?
That EToys' trademark application was overturned shouldn't be a factor here. Even if Etoys had their trademark, they'd still be at fault.
And ten fingers....
sigh.
Just to ward off confusion, I do understand who was there first, and that Etoys was pretty much a huge bully.
Let's not play the "art" card like ZDNET. Let's not wear out that privilage of artists to receive a little bit of breathing room when they're being controversial, and need some respect by default. I'm going to assume that no one would want their site treated like eToy was, even if the site wasn't "artistic". Give the "artistic freedom" flag back to the artists, people. It's their right to wave it.
The question that I see is: (and I'm going to make the gross error of hoping that people really are good and reasonable)
When they start behaving, does one continue to yell and slap them around?
etoys tried to set make an example out of eToy. At least it could be viewed that way. Sortof. I'm just wondering if this might not be a hidden chance to make an example out of them, by much more subtle means than an injunction.
I hesitantly guess that eToys knew that eToy had been around for a while. If eToy had just appeared, I'm quite sure that eToys would have raised hell about them attempting to take their customers traffic by attempting to mislead them away from Etoys, or various other really silly whines.
However, At this point I want to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and try to think that eToys corps and lawyers looked at the laws that they though would permanently win this mess for them, and went "Oops. Hmm." They may also be willing to do this more so now because the Xmas rush is over.
The question is, do we as the veterans of the net deign to take the companies by the hand, give them a pat, say "no, no", and then try to come up with a understanding solution? I'm not sure that a "do you want to look at eToy, and artistic site, or Etoys, a toy-selling child-appropriate site?" front page would have hurt the egos of the artists too terribly much. They're pretty resiliant people, for the most part, imho. I'm not saying that this is the way they should have acted, but it's just a suggestion. The designers who probably knew more about the web than the corps over at eToys could have probably come up with some kind of similar solution.
At this point, the artists may well have replied with a hearty "Oi! Fuck you!" I don't know them or what their response might have been.
I'm just saying personallly that I would have reacted more.... _conniving_ than that. It could be a chance to set down rules and ways of corporations.coms can ask their "net neighbor" (pftt, that's so cute) for help, rather than being legal assholes. I wonder if, even though Etoys is beginning to behave after the fact, should the attempt not be made to be instructive? I just am anxiously looking for any sign of companies respecting the media that they're suddenly wandering into.
Unfortunately, there's always that problem that if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk. If you give him a glass of milk, he'll want you to warm it up. If you warm it up, he'll want you to read him a bedtime story.
Assuming that people are basically good and reasonable is a phase, I'm sure I'll get over it when I turn 20, right?
I do believe that eToy should most certainly be refunded their legal costs, though. That just goes as a assumed product of Etoys "behaving". Heh. And I understand the anger that the threatened-feeling web creators are feeling. Dodging the blind giants stomping though thier backyards..... Right. sigh.
Ceren / Deviltry's Seraph
Cerennospam@magnesiumitsjustcannedhamproduct.net
I'm beginning to think that the "injucntion" is the road rage of the "information superhighway".
Even though I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment as I have young children that I encourage to use the web, I do not agree that his point makes me change sides in this debate. Etoys are trying to use there money to buy the legal system so that they can get there way.
If they were asking nicely and that was all they had ever done then I would see etoy as they villain of the piece, but that is not the case. They are trying to bully their way around and they should not be allowed to do so.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
When you see that, this is how I'd recommend responding:
/. regulars know how stupid etoys is being. All the business traders see is "someone going to etoys, a business site, can accidentally see something I find offensive", and so they line up behind etoys. But I don't think most of them are so stupid that they won't realize what's really going on when it's presented properly.
"My name is Alex Fiennes [ed: I'm assuming that from your email address]. Let's say that I decide to get the domain alexfiennes.com, since that is my name, and make a website at www.alexfiennes.com that has whatever I want on it, which happens to include profanity, nudity, and/or whatever else you find offensive. I have this website for 3 years happily, and the website is well-known in the community. Then one day some guy named Alex Fienne (no S) creates a toy company, gets the website www.alexfienne.com, and sues me to prevent me using www.alexfiennes.com despite the fact that I've been using alexfiennes.com (which is my name) for 3 years before the toy company was even created. Who is in the right?"
Once they say that yes, you are in the right and the toy company isn't, point out that the only change you've made in this entire story is substitute "alexfienne" for "etoy" (well, and flipped around which one has the S).
I think this is important because it's probably people like you're talking about who are the most important people to influence. All the
[TMB]
In the real world, settlements are desirable things to reach. It is naive and foolish to believe that either side would completely capitulate unless and until they are clearly lost. Accordingly, in the real world, settlements don't happen unless both sides are holding their stomachs, hating the settlement; but hating the alternative even more.
Despite much I have seen written here on slashdot, it appears to me objectively, that there exists a litigable case, and that neither side has anything close to a slam-dunk. Talk about counterclaims based upon malicious prosecution or abuse of process on these facts is the kind of talk in which only people unfamiliar with these causes of actions would engage.
While I agree that the particular language described here is out of line, there are some obvious solutions that, in the real world, work to solve many close or too-expensive-to-litigate domain name cases:
Use a "selection page." Have the "home page" be essentially devoid of substantive content promoting either party, but serve solely as an index to guide browsers to the intended web sites. Each party is free to place anything they want on their respective web sites -- the only limitation is that the first page offer a plausible description (they would negotiate the nature of the page among themselves) of each site, and provide links thereto.
While this approach doesn't resolve all of the problems raised here on slashdot, it would be arrogant beyond belief for us to insist that etoy fight to the last inch at their own expense when other solutions might be available. Obviously, there are aesthetic issues and considerations at stake here, but IMHO, such a solution (or something like it) may be the only meaningful alternative to litigating to the bitter end. While I think we would all like to see closure and clear legal precedent regarding these issues, neither of the parties in interest really benefit from paying to test THEIR commitment to OUR principles.
In short, I agree that the EToys position is probably a show-stopper. But something like it is probably not. A case that can settle should settle, and we, particularly as spectators, should not treat meaningful efforts to find a middle ground with derision.
The hackers, of course!
Apparently they're enjoying the situation and getting ready to launch an online game. There's a lot of really enjoyable things in this article. It brought a smile to my face to see the chaos that they have planned. A new web site, games, a music CD. I'm liking it!
No Zen is good zen
My question is what happens if etoy winds up winning a court battle between the two. I remember that a judge said there was a $10,000/day fine for etoy.com if they left their site up... will eToys be made to compensate etoy for the downtime? ($10,000 per day of downtime, plus all of etoy's legal fees seems like a fair deal)
:)
I'm just glad I don't have any stock in eToys.
Here's a spoiler... You will die a lonely man.
If there was a fund or something to supply legal aid to people like etoy/EFF/etc when they are sued/oppressed by big companies who think they can get away with it 'cause they can't be sued back (the little guys can't afford to sue them), and if the fund was reimbursed when the good guys won, this might help make the internet a better place. Just a crackpot idea, be nice if it worked though
You are not me, therefore you are not important
I'm sorry, but on what exactly is e-toys case based? I don't see it.
There are four families of possible causes of action. From what I've read in the papers (I have NOT seen any of the actual court documents) none of them works:
I think the judge was wrong to grant the injunction. Some combination of talk about securities fraud, other bad things, the xmas rush, the home town advantage, judicial error, whatever, produced the injunction. I don't see how it could have survived an appeal. Or am I missing some fact somewhere? Anyone seen the actual court papers?
To my eye it's no wonder etoys is trying to drop the case.
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I have a blog.
With this, Amazon's annoying patent vigilance, and Toys-R-Us's incompetent shipping department, I don't know where to get Episode I Legos for my nephew!!
The linked case of the BBC seems to be on dubious standing at best, the BBC's trademark has existed since the 1920s.
Its almost a case of domain squating, and yet we (/.) rightly frown on that practise.
You can send your thoughts to etoys here .
'sapientia potestas est'
Although etoy.com should not have to do this, if they want to, they could. It might pacify the scum-sucking corporate fascists at etoys.com. Etoy could put up a main page, so that when you hit their site for the first time, a very plain and unassuming page pops up and says:
-----Welcome!
Are you looking for:
Etoy.com - Fine web art OR Etoys.com - Toys on the web!
-----
Then you just click on whichever one it is you want.
The porn site "beefcake.com" ("Adult Entertainment") and the Southpark site "beef-cake.com" ("Southpark Archives!") shared similiar URLs this way quite effectively, and I doubt many kids bothered to click on the "Adult Site" link when their favorite SP characters that they wanted to see were only a click away in the other direction.
Of course, the profit mongering, IPO-lusting control freaks at Etoys might still not be happy with this, although I think it pretty much defines "good faith effort". If that's the case, fuck 'em. Etoy has a very strong case in court and can sue the living shit out of Etoys for their stupid, bullying tactics.
-Ben
So, eToys stock closed today at a little less than 26. While flame them certainly helps, as does boycotting, why don't we all go out and buy a share or two of the butt-head company of the week? At the lowest possible price... This lets us truthfully claim to be shareholders, and threaten the board of directors with removal. If enough of us bought a share or ten, we might even force a shareholders meetings, and get a chance to vote on the boneheaded actions of packs of mgmt morons... If nothing else, it means that we can flood the annual meetings with angry shareholders, attracting press attention, etc. (pardon me while I drag out my own horror story) In my dealings against Hasbro, I've told all the 401k managers I can find to dump Hasbro, and urged a lot of people to buy Hasbro and flame them as a shareholder, because they have to pay some attention to shareholders. I can't claim to have affected Hasbro's stock price, but you will notice that it's been tanking for over two years now...
ericr
Eric Robison
Clue Computing, Inc.
ericr@clue.com/www.clue.com
It was Judge Woodlock, in the US District Court for Massachusetts, with a gavel.
Boy this is getting to be a regulare feature here :) hehe hay well yeah anyone can post there prospectives like this and thats cool :)
Ok now...
It seems Etoys is trying to get Etoy to enforce the allready dead CDA on themselfs.
Initally they'll be asked just to clean up there front page but eventually they'll have to clean up the whole site...
Also the language is eather forgetfull or compeatly ignorent of the fact that etoy is not a corpration..
What Etoys is asking might be considered ok for a fellow corperation seeking a quick solution to a lawsute but Etoy is an artist group and this "request" would be akin to asking a busness to stop making money...
I'm shure most of us knows that free expression is the life blood of art and proffit is the life blood of busness. Each can survive with out it for only so long... thow some internet companys seem to have survived for a very long time in the state of unproffitability....
if etoy did take this preposale the folowing would happen.. some would drop out of etoy.. the remainning artists would continue to work in a more commertalised and stiffled mannor.. the audence would walk away seeing the life blood of etoy is gone.. Etoy would slowly wither and die from there.. leaving etoys free to take over the domain and be rid of etoy forever...
I don't know if etoys is just yanking our chain or if etoys is sereous about getting this behind them. But what they want is basicly nothing short of a CDA style agreement from etoy and as I said thats like asking etoys to give up proffitability forever..
Yes artists stiffle themselfs.. they restrict themselfs becouse they feel it's good for the art they are doing... if an artist feels his work is for kids then he restricts himself acordingly.. if he feels his message is for a certen group he restricts himself acordingly... if he believes he should act as the spawn of satan he should have all the artistic resorces at his disposal to do so..
What etoys and other companys have to wake up to is the fact that they can only control there corprate image from within there own company.. outside the walls of there busness is the rest of the world and we'll pritty much act as we see fit.. if someone from etoy wallked into etoys HQ and started stripping nakid then etoys would have something to worry about... but then again so would etoy sence thats not exactly a sain thing to do.
I don't actually exist.
I'm not sure what moron got it into their head that packet-flooding, DoS or other such illegitimate, boorish and immoral uses of the Internet could be equated with "Civil Disobedience", but I'm not surprised to see so many ignorant people jump on the bandwagon.
/. and ./ readers.
What does surprise me is the "apparent" support and legitimization of such activities by
Come on, people! How would you feel if your ISP was drowning because some dimwitted nerd decided to pingflood a server hosted on their network?
What if you were the ISP? Or the IT/tech guys responsible for keeping the site up?
As it stands, their is a dispute in progress. Your attacks on etoys network/systems DOES NOT lend any legal sympathy to etoy.com!
If you want your voice to be heard, petition the court.
-- sky G.
They must have. How else could they get their site so much free publicity?
We're talking about a site no one had ever heard of, which won an award no one had ever heard of, run by a bunch of people whose major accomplishment was putting the word "Playboy" in their META tags, and the'yve got you comparing them to Monet. What a bunch of suckers.
There is something very wrong with a company who's key trademark is "Where great ideas come to you" that dictates what ideas can appear on what web sites. The acts of eToys are such a front to the open nature of the Internet, the web and art. The only great idea that comes to me is holy fucken shit these guys hop online in November of 1997 and already are pushing the sites registered backed in October 1995 around? If they wheren't willing to accept the activities of a domain with the singular use of their name then why did they choose a company name where the singular was already in use for over 2 years?! I personally have gotten sick of emailing etoys and getting no responce. They don't seem to care two-cents about their image. What continues to bother me now is at what point will their actions no longer be simply a "Wired" worthy news item and make it onto ABC News, CBS News and NBC news? It sure seems time to stop talking to eToys directly and begin yelling at them indirectly. The acts of eToys should be reviewed by the watchful eyes of popular media. And if their acts aren't horrorific by themselves to gain notice by popular media then maybe it is time we start talking to the popular media to make them more aware. The Internet should be flexiable enough that we can add commericalism to it without loosing the accomplishment of having created a network of free flowing expression. If there is only room enough for one or the other then why even bother with migrating to IPv6? In only two years of being on the net, eToys has decided to become a bull of the pre-existing sites. How pathentic can a distributor of "fun" be? Death to what eToys wants to turn the Net into. May we always remember these actions of these monsters up until the day eToys takes it's very last order. eToys must be stopped. Their "great idea" of what the Internet should be has unfortantly been stolden directly from the pages of 1984.
like i said on a previous post they must be
boycotted and ignored by everybody for a very
long time, until they get the message.
We may believe that corporate America has had enough time to learn how to be good and productive netizens, yet they have not shown any evidence of this. And the question that I ask is why is this? Why is it that the majority of the upper management echelons of the corporations of the world approach the internet like Cortez approached Technochitlan? Because that is their nature. These people do not have these jobs that pay them millions of dollars a year making decisions that could make or break a company to be good citizens of anything. Infact this reliance on them to make such decisions tends to breed a kind of arrogance that they could do no wrong, and that everything else will be bent to their wills. There seriously is a personality type to the kinds of people who usually become execs in large corporations. And this personality type tends to not care what other people think, or who may be hurt by their action; as long as they are making something off of it. I guess this may sound a bit anti-business or something or anti-capitalism. But it is not. Its just if you want corporations to do business on the internet you have to be willing to either deal with or live with the way corporations are going to act. I will sum this up with an oriental proverb that I think will get across my point. There was a Scorpion and a Frog on the bank of a river. The Scorpion asked the Frog to take her across the river. The Frog said no because the Scorpion would sting him. The Scorpion said that it wouldn't because it would die to, so the frog agreed. And halfway across the river the Scorpion stung the frog, and as the Frog died and began to sink it asked, "Why, now you will die to." And the Scorpion answered, "Because it is my nature."
Even though it is a bunch of crap, I do have to admire the way that at 1024x768, with IE5's text size set to "larger", the spam has a perfect divide down the center of the page. Almost as if it were double collumned.
"Logically, then, the world is a cube."
TOYWAR, etoy's new site is up! See it to see why you should see it!
No Zen is good zen
I'd do more or less the exact same thing I did the day that nasty bill landed on the Internet that made profanity on the 'net illegal. I changed the graphic on the top page of my web site ("Surreal Estates") right over to the word "FUCK", following the same style of green three-D letters and connecting grey pipes. I also took advantage of the fewer letters giving me more screen estate per letter to work with. When I had a version that was readable on a 15" monitor from 50 feet away, I put it online. (The new graphic was a little smaller bandwidth-wise, too.)
Ha ha
They're getting sued badly by some south-african company for loadsa money. May go bankrupt..
Etoys moved in next to an art-shop. Now they complain that some people may not like the art made by (or show on) Etoy.com... well.. they knew what thewy were getting into, it's their own bloody fault. P.S. anyone heard anything about a southafrican company sueing etoys?
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Incidentially, the "nudity and violence" have not been on etoy's main server since 1996, well before eToys went online. eToys' "precondition" was already satisfied before they filed their suit! The only objectionable thing on etoy.com proper was the word "fucking" in "Get the fucking flash plugin", one click away from the index page. (The old etoy site is archived at C3.)