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

[GlenHaag]

I'm really glad that he's taking a stand on this. I hope that it all turns out well for him.

Glen

 

[MatS]

As much as people complain about it, it comes down to knowing which battles to fight, and which ones to avoid.

sometimes the best battles are those that are actually fought.........
with all due respect I hope the owners of the HTF take a good look at this and re-examine their policy as more info becomes available on this matter
FatWallet Victorious in Challenge to Wal-Mart’s Frivolous DMCA Subpoena
ROSCOE, IL – In response to FatWallet’s letter demanding that Wal-Mart withdraw its subpoena for identifying information about a poster or face sanctions, Wal-Mart backed down. Wal-Mart had sought the identity of the individual who posted Wal-Mart Day After Thanksgiving sales information on the FatWallet site.
Megan E. Gray, co-counsel for FatWallet, was not surprised by Wal-Mart’s decision. “You have to call their bluff. Too often people will assert copyright protection when it is clear none exists, just to fall under the broad reach of the DMCA. It is why abuses of the DMCA are so common.”
Wal-Mart obtained a subpoena from federal court under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after submitting a declaration under penalty of perjury that its sales prices were protected by copyright law. FatWallet.com objected to the subpoena on the grounds that the Supreme Court has ruled that facts cannot be copyrighted.
In one of the first times in the history of the DMCA, FatWallet also demanded that Wal-Mart pay damages for its knowingly false assertion of copyright, as provided under Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
Tim Storm, President and Founder of FatWallet.com said, “We’re pleased Wal-Mart dropped its request for the poster’s identity, but an injustice still occurred here. The use of the DMCA to remove factual information about prices that retailers charge consumers is just wrong. We stand by our belief that consumers have the right to share the factual shopping information required to be a smart consumer. That is what FatWallet is all about. We are thankful for the support of consumers everywhere who voiced their support for our position.”
FatWallet co-counsel Deirdre K. Mulligan, director of UC Berkeley School of Law’s Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, said, “When the DMCA passed, many were concerned that the takedown provisions were heavily tilted against speakers--by merely claiming copyright, any individual or business can silence speech. While this case caught the public’s attention, there are certainly other instances of speakers being wrongfully silenced under the DMCA.”

 

[David Lambert]

Awesome! Totally awesome!

 

[MikeAlletto]

So they backed off on their request for the posters information. It doesn't say anything about them backing down on the original threat about posting the prices. Its not really a victory, but more of a stalemate. Are they going to pay Falwallet damages?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Let's all just take a wait-n-see attitude. There's no need to get all excited just yet...

 

[Peter Kim]

Nonetheless, a little operation (relatively speaking) held fast to its beliefs in the face of monumental adversity - THE icon and leader of American retail.

For a David to force a Goliath to back down (regardless of the extent of retreat) is unheard of in this modern legal era.

This is worthy of excitement. Apparently many of the prominent media channels feel the same.

Congrats to Tim - yeah, it's one thing to pick your battles...it's entirely different to never sacrifice your principles.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Congrats to Tim and way to go. It is a step in the right direction. If these damn retailers are so concerned with keep their sales prices 'secret', they need to sanction any of their staff that leak the info, as well as companies printing the material, if they are responsible for the leak. Or they could choose not to advertise sales. You want to check the price, pick up the phone or come in the store.

But they have no right to stop the general public from spreading the word about something they found out from 'x' source.

 

[Chris S]

Congratulations to Tim Storm and his crew. This is indeed a victory for him and the rest of the net. We'll have to wait and see if any of these retailers hold fast on their charge that posting the prices violates copy right law. My guess is that this will once again become a mute issue for the retailers because they just seemed to want to protect their Black Friday sales. After all that is their busiest shopping day.

Chris S.

 

[Greg_Y]

After all that is their busiest shopping day.

Black Friday is not necessarily the biggest shopping day.

 

[David Lambert]

But still, the mystique is there! :wink:

 

[Chris S]

Has there been any new developments recently? I've started to notice other sites allowing the early postings again and was wondering if the retailers had given up?

Chris S.

 

[Greg_Y]

Security expert Bruce Schneier touched on the issue in his December 15, 2002 CRYPTO-GRAM newsletter. (For more information on Schneier and to read the newsletter, go to www.counterpane.com)

 

[Aaron Silverman]

After all that is their busiest shopping day.

I worked at the mall this past holiday season. Although I didn't work the day after Thanksgiving, the day AFTER Christmas was actually the busiest day I worked! It was at Electronics Boutique, and on 12/26 there were a million people in the store to spend their Christmas money. An interesting surprise!

 

[Chris S]

I started wondering about this topic again since Black Friday is only 3 weeks away. Were any suits issued last year over leaked BF ads?? Any indications on whether the B&M will try it this year??

Chris S.

 

[Derek Miner]

How about this: How can a price of an item be a "fact" when it isn't in effect yet? I would think that potential pricing information that hasn't gone into effect yet could be considered to be private corporate material, similar to any plans or promotions a company would have on the drawing board for a product launch, etc.

(Jeez, I didn't realize this thread was from two years ago!!)

 

[Chris S]

How can a price of an item be a "fact" when it isn't in effect yet?

I would argue its a "fact" because they're reporting on what is on the printed flyer. What is printed on the flyer is a fact. Its only private corporate material if the reports came from inside the headquarters prior to the printings.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

I thought that facts could not be copyrighted, like "XYZ store is going to have the Buffy box on sale next week for $99". How is stating that a copyright violation?

And if that IS a violation, then why is posting the same info during the sale apparently NOT one?

I can see how it's a violation of confidentiality if an employee or vendor is the one printing it, but if you're not a party to any agreement, you aren't covered by it.

Scanning & posting the actual ad is a different matter.

I am not criticizing HTF or any other sites' policies on this, just questioning the whole copyright theory. I would think stores would be GLAD to have people publicizing their sales for them, especially a well-regarded site like this one with LOTS of visitors. How many of us have gone to a movie, bought a DVD or piece of audio/video gear, etc. because we read about it here? Great idea to threaten sites like this.

My guess is the retailers would lose this if it actually went to trial.