DMCA now being used to ... (1 Viewer)

[David Lambert]

Isn't that what the Electronic Frontier Foundation is supposed to help do? "Fight this kind of junk"?

I've been watching their site; I haven't seen a response from them on this situation. They've supposedly been contacted by several of the people "targeted" by this interpretation of the DMCA. I would love to hear their take on the situation!

 

[Chris S]

TechLive, a TechTV channel news show, just aired a spot on this topic and they actually talked with someone from the EFF. It turns out the grounds that the companies are using is in fact copyright violations. Sounds a little iffy to me. Kind of like being sued for posting what happens at the end of Great Expectations. You can find a link to the show notes here or their website is TechLive.com. Take a look at the bottom of the show notes and you can vote on this issue. They will air the results tomorrow.
Chris S.

 

[Steven Good]

All Things Condsidered on National Public Radie did a piece ont this and had interview audio clips from the guy who runs FatWallet, and a Wal-Mart Rep. Interesting that it's getting this amount of attention...

 

[David Lambert]

An aspect of this which I've been sitting on and mulling over, and which I'm surprised noone else has brought up yet:


If it is a "copyright violation" for me to post a Black Friday sale price two weeks before the fact, then why is it any less of a violation to post it the day of the fact? Or even after-the-fact?

After all, it is the same information. Just posted on different days.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It could come down to a timing issue (where once the prices are published for public consumption, the info becomes public domain).

 

[Rich Chiavaroli]

To me it really sounds like these companies are seriously stretching the law here. Yes, they do have a copyright on their flyer, but the prices are factual information. For someone to post a link to a scanned image of the flyer would be in violation of the copyright, but someone knowing what "SuperStore A" is going to sell widgets for next week doesn't apply to this. I think this is where the EFF is going to make a case, and I'd bet, win.

What if an employee of "SuperStore A" hears from someone in their corprate office about a price on something two weeks from now. Then that employee tells some friends who then post the info on a message board? No one has violated a copyright. No one even looked at a flyer to gain this information. The only possible violation here would be if the employee had signed a non-disclosure form.

Even if someone read the flyer weeks in advance, I still think it's stretching the copyright issue.

Sears just had their "family" night, and from what I've heard, let people see their Thanksgiving flyer. Now I've heard about some of the sales they're going to have (which I won't talk about here). Is it even reasonable to show flyers to the public (granted, a limited subset) and not expect people to talk about it? What it boils down to is them saying, "Well you can talk about it, but you just can't talk to a LOT of people about it".

Just so it's clear, I'm not posting this because I'm unhappy with the policies here. I agree that they need to do what in the best interest of the site and the people who frequent here.. and that's to make sure the site remains on line. I personally don't care about sales not being posted until the flyers are in the paper. I can't buy anything in the flyer until Sunday morning anyway. It's the way I feel that they're distorting the intent of the law, or the law itself that bothers me.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc often post leaked information that the public is not supposed to know yet. It is called 'news'.

Why don't they get shut down? Because they aren't little guys without deep pockets...like the HTF and DVD Talk.

All retailers are doing is bullying you guys around because they know you can't afford to defend yourselves. Nobody is breaking any laws here.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Like Rich, I have to agree. I can see why you have your policy and I'll follow it, (for the little input I may ever be able to add). But, As Michael just said, I don't think you're breaking any laws and they're just bullying you. And I hate seeing the b@st@rds get away with abusing the situation.

 

[GlenHaag]

So, I have to ask you.

When would you want me to list the Black Friday prices? On Thursday when we get the flyers, or Friday at midnight?

Let me know and I'll be glad to comply.

Thanks,

Glen

 

[Patrick Sun]

If they show up in the Thursday edition of the paper (which the majority of them do), post them on Thursday.
Oh, and thank you for picking up David's slack.

 

[Tom Rags]

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc often post leaked information that the public is not supposed to know yet. It is called 'news'.

That is a great point. Which is the greater offense:
1) XYZ news is reporting that it has discovered that the US will begin a sneak attack on country X on a certain day. (These "type" of reports happen ALL the time)

2) Website Y running consumer prices a week in advance for MegaSuperstore.

It is no coincidence that XYZ newscorp can get away with this (on a FARRRRR different scale) while harmless not-forprofit boards such as this cannot (for something "relatively" insignificant). It's really a shame. Frankly, this leaked information will not have a significant financial impact on Megasuperstore, I can promise you.

However, cudos to HTF for playing it safe and picking and choosing their battles (the Megasuperstores know that sites such as HTF know that the ends don't justify the means to fight it).

 

[David Lambert]

Patrick, I think he's posting videogame information. But he can post the DVDs too, if he wants. Heck, all of y'all have at it. Have a blast. I'll be working a 17 hour day on Friday, and 16 more on Saturday.
OTOH, the overtime will be nice!
Trivia time! Anyone know why it's called "Black" Friday?

 

[David Lambert]

Bingo. Tony wins, uh, the thumb!

 

[Chris S]

cudos to HTF for playing it safe and picking and choosing their battles

Agreed. However I still think that someone needs to fight this because if these companies succeed easily here then they could use it to push any other changes they might want, legally or not. Hopefully the EFF will take this up (they might have already but I'm not sure).
Chris S.
[Pouting] I didn't want a stupid thumb any ways...:frowning: [/Pouting]

 

[Patrick Sun]

I'll try to post the Black Friday DVD specials if no one picks it up. I'll even fork over $0.50 for a newspaper if I have to!

 

[Chad Ellinger]

I'll just play devil's advocate for a bit.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call sale prices "public fact" before the circulars they are listed in are distributed to the public. Prices are what distinguish one retailer from another and give a retailer an advantage over the competition. If a retailer's prices are leaked to the public before their intended date, competitors can use the information to undermine the retailers advantage.

Let's not forget that many websites are not just posting sale prices early. Users also search for competing stores with higher prices and price-match policies and/or coupons to beat the original sale price and eliminate the pricing advantage of the original store. In many cases, a store's good faith policies are exploited by consumers looking to save a buck. Price errors, overlooked coupons and rebates, and price-matching policies are more dangerous than ever thanks to websites like FatWallet. Granted, these types of price manipulations can be done once a sale price has been made public, but it certainly makes it a lot easier when consumers have a week or two to research potential retailer oversights.

Are early price postings better for the consumer? Undoubtedly. Even if the consumer does not plan on exploiting retailers to get the best price, early postings help him plan his shopping earlier and can also get him excited about upcoming sales. But do retailers have a right to keep their prices secret until they deem them ready for public release? Maybe they do.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

But Chad, do the retailers have a right to go after the general public who is spreading around the info, when one of their own employees, (or their own inadequate practices) lead to the leak to begin with?

 

[Dah-Dee]

Chad, prices are facts. No question about that under existing law. As stated previously, the Senate in 1998 removed from the House-proposed version of the DMCA a provision that would have protected compilations of fact, databases of information, and, among other things, stock quotes -- in other words, prices. In 1984 (?), in the Feist opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court found that copyright law does not prohibit dissemination of bare facts. In 1998, the House of Representatives tried to legislate such a prohibition, but failed. Prices are not protected under existing copyright law. Employees distributing such information for public consumption may be liable to involved companies for violations of corporate policy or confidentiality agreements, but that is *entirely* a different matter.

 

[Brian E]

But do retailers have a right to keep their prices secret until they deem them ready for public release? Maybe they do.

Of course they have a right to try. The thing is they need to take care of the problems in their own house first as that would stop a good deal of it. Instead of going after individuals and certain websites.

 

[Dah-Dee]

Bingo! You win a...a...a warm fuzzy feeling