Yes, I've been looking at the Etoy site
since about 1997.... it's been around since aroun 94/95. When you say "at the time of the suit" you are talking about a time when they had been already in a tussle with Etoys for months.
Sure, Etoy being Etoy, if someone messes with them, they don't miss the opportunity to speak their mind. If you've been in a similar situation (I have), you understand the gut reaction to mock the "tyrants." It's important to be able to do that, not just roll over.
What do you mean by the fake toys? Sure, they've used those little lego-esque characters, but I wouldn't think those characters would make anyone think "Etoys!" except for the lawsuit situation. Toywar, obviously, uses all sorts of Toy references, but of course, it was all about the war with Etoys.
I think you're trivializing the work of etoy and even the Digital Hijack project itself by your reference to "playboy" in meta tags; there's a lot more to it than that; it's like saying the WTO is best known for putting unflattering pictures of Mike Moore on its website.:-)... But even that isn't really important; I may not be a fan of all of the work of eToy, but they should certainly have a right to the website they were operating for years... the Etoys tussle had been going on for months before the actual suit hit, and Etoy did respond to it, but it was Etoys who threw the first legal punches.
What have things come to when we congratulate corporations or mega-corp-organizations for not abusing the legal system with SLAPP suits against their critics? Shows you where the status quo has fallen to, and probably why groups like the yesmen feel the need to shake up the corporate hegemony somewhat creatively.
I looked through the site, and these people aren't saying anything informed or intelligent...or even funny.
Try reading it again. If you feel you have to read it too carefully to get it, then think how much more carefully people need to read the WTO's site.
a) I think you are mixed up about the eToys suit. Etoy had been running their art website years before Etoys came along - Etoy weren't trying to confuse Etoys customers - they weren't even interested in Etoys until Etoys started messing with them.
b) The GATT site is a parody. A work does not have to do pratfalls to be a parody. If you read it, you'll see it's a parody. The conference organizers obviously didn't read it - they just clicked the mailto link.
Transparency? That's gatt.org's point. WTO are not transparent. They try to prove they are transparent by boasting about hundreds of thousands of documents online at their website? Where do they talk about how they pressure countries to change laws aimed at protecting public health, working standards, etc., because they interfere with "free trade?" Somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of documents?
Yeah, great, WTO can sic lawyers on their critics and abuse the legal system just like all the other big corporations. What swell guys they are for not doing that; lets give a medal of honor to any corporation or group that doesn't resort to SLAPP suits as a means of silencing individuals without the financial means to fight them.
Anyway, the point of my post was to point out the obvious, which has also been stated elsewhere - the WTO are not "cool;" they do not "have a sense of humor." They simply don't want the bad PR for suing their critics.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by the fake toys? Sure, they've used those little lego-esque characters, but I wouldn't think those characters would make anyone think "Etoys!" except for the lawsuit situation. Toywar, obviously, uses all sorts of Toy references, but of course, it was all about the war with Etoys.
I think you're trivializing the work of etoy and even the Digital Hijack project itself by your reference to "playboy" in meta tags; there's a lot more to it than that; it's like saying the WTO is best known for putting unflattering pictures of Mike Moore on its website. :-) ... But even that isn't really important; I may not be a fan of all of the work of eToy, but they should certainly have a right to the website they were operating for years... the Etoys tussle had been going on for months before the actual suit hit, and Etoy did respond to it, but it was Etoys who threw the first legal punches.
Only to avoid bad PR. Here's more about how they feel on the matter. Remember, it's a press release, with Fluff Value Added.
What have things come to when we congratulate corporations or mega-corp-organizations for not abusing the legal system with SLAPP suits against their critics? Shows you where the status quo has fallen to, and probably why groups like the yesmen feel the need to shake up the corporate hegemony somewhat creatively.
I looked through the site, and these people aren't saying anything informed or intelligent...or even funny.
Try reading it again. If you feel you have to read it too carefully to get it, then think how much more carefully people need to read the WTO's site.
b) The GATT site is a parody. A work does not have to do pratfalls to be a parody. If you read it, you'll see it's a parody. The conference organizers obviously didn't read it - they just clicked the mailto link.
Yeah, great, WTO can sic lawyers on their critics and abuse the legal system just like all the other big corporations. What swell guys they are for not doing that; lets give a medal of honor to any corporation or group that doesn't resort to SLAPP suits as a means of silencing individuals without the financial means to fight them.
Anyway, the point of my post was to point out the obvious, which has also been stated elsewhere - the WTO are not "cool;" they do not "have a sense of humor." They simply don't want the bad PR for suing their critics.
Since everyone seems to think the WTO has such a great sense of humor about this, check out their earlier statement on related matters.