faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older
stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit
story
advertising
supporters
past
polls
topics
about
bugs
jobs
hof
|
| Dow vs. Parody | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 363 comments | Search Discussion |
|
|
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned
by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any
way. |
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200
(Score:2)
by rking (32070) on
Wednesday January 01, @01:51PM (#4994291)
|
| Agreed, they even put the kind of totally outrageous
statements that only a corporation run by people with no sense
of morality could make. How could anyone be expected to
distinguish this from the real Dow Chemical? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:1)
by dipipanone
(570849) on Wednesday January 01, @03:11PM (#4994619)
|
What I like best about these sort of scams is that
nobody would ever have even *heard* of this lame-ass
hippie parody website if the dumb arrogant fucks at
Dow hadn't felt so affronted that they had to attempt
to censor it.
Haven't these captains of
industry ever heard the old maxim about how the
internet interprets censorship as damage and what
happens then? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200
(Score:2)
by Henry V .009
(518000) <marstrail
AT hotmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 01, @01:55PM
(#4994313)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
Have you ever seen "just kidding" notices on the Onion?
Goddamn, but a lot of people get fooled by the Onion. I've
seen articles about how the mainstream press picks up on it
every now and then. So, since the Onion goes out of its way to
make its articles look real (hint: that's why they're funny),
the Onion should be sued?
If you want the courts to
step in here based on the "some people will be fooled" line,
that is a very slippery slope. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Thursday January 02, @08:51AM (#4998035)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 27, @02:02PM) |
So, since the Onion goes out of its way to make
its articles look real (hint: that's why they're
funny), the Onion should be sued?
If The
Onion called their site The New York Times
and went to great lengths to make their site look
exactly like the Times's site, even going so
far as to using special software to mirror the
Times's site in real time... then yeah, they
should sure as hell get sued. The issue here is that
these morons-- yes, morons-- intentionally falsely
represented themselves to be Dow Chemical. Not a
parody of Dow Chemical, or a site critical of Dow
Chemical, but rather Dow Chemical itself. That's
against the rules. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200
(Score:3, Interesting)
by MrHanky (141717)
on Wednesday January 01, @01:57PM (#4994324)
(http://www.google.com/)
|
There is a line between parody and fraud. It's
obvious that the group in question went out of their way to
make their site look as much like an official Dow site as
possible in order to defame Dow Chemical. That's not parody.
That's intentional misrepresentation. It might be
argued that Dow are misrepresenting themselves, and that The
Yes-Men are helping Dow to express more truthfully what they
stand for. Not that this matters at all. All these pranks are
meant to last for some time, then get a lot of attention as
the corporation sends their army of lawyers, then closed down.
But some still work, like gatt.org [wto.org], a parody of
wto.org [gatt.org]. They
are so alike that I almost don't see the difference myself.
This one's been up for more than a year. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200
(Score:2)
by Tom (822) on Wednesday
January 01, @03:01PM (#4994562)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
|
Ah, the classic "But they started it!" defense. That
always works so well in the courts.
Nope, you read
that wrong. I don't care who did it first, what I care about
is what is being done.
Free speech does not
give you the right to say whatever you want and damned be the
consequences. It doesn't work that way.
It doesn't?
If it carries consequences, then it ain't free speech. If that
were the definition of free speech, then hey, you have a lot
of free speech in, say, china. You can say whatever you want.
They might kill you for it, but that's just the consequences,
so it's still free speech, right?
Is that how you want it
to work?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by EvanED
(569694) <mailto:evaned@netzeroEEE.net%20minus%20threevowels>
on Wednesday January 01, @03:27PM (#4994690)
|
"It doesn't? If it carries consequences, then it
ain't free speech. If that were the definition of free
speech, then hey, you have a lot of free speech in,
say, china. You can say whatever you want. They might
kill you for it, but that's just the consequences, so
it's still free speech, right?
Is that how you want
it to work?"
What the parent means is that you
do not have the right to commit slander, libel, etc.
Let's think of what absolute free speech
means:
-no perjury laws (or you wouldn't have
free speech on the bench)
-you can incite
illegal actions--such as telling someone to kill
someone--without reproach
-you can shout 'fire'
in a crowded theatre, probably leading to injuries an
property damage and certainly leading to lost revenue
for the theatre owner, and not be responsible even if
it is just a prank
This is not what the
founding fathers and other governmental people
intended when they wrote ratified the first amendment.
They were trying to protect against censoring speech
because of political messages. While parodies are of
course protected, they cease to be protected when they
cross the line to fradulent misrepresentation, and the
Yes Men arguably did with their parody and certainly
did when they sent links to journalists claiming that
they represent Dow and were issuing a press release.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by Tom (822) on
Thursday January 02, @08:29AM (#4997929)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
|
I'm well aware of the points you
make.
However, note that Dow has not (yet?)
tried to sue the Yes Men. What they did do was shut
them up. I don't mind if they drag them into a court
and try to get damages. However, the Yes Men do have
a right to say whatever they want to say, unless a
court decides that they can't.
The entire
DMCA is a 1st Amendment violation, because it allows
certain entities (copyright holders) to bar someone
elses speech without a court trial.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Thursday January 02, @09:16AM (#4998169)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 27, @02:02PM) |
However, the Yes Men do have a right to say
whatever they want to say, unless a court decides
that they can't.
Two things. First, no,
they don't. As we've been repeating over and over
in this discussion, there are lots of types of
speech that are not lawful. Intentionally
misrepresenting yourself to be something or
someone that you are not for the purpose of
defaming a third party is not lawful. They don't
have the right to do that under any
circumstance.
Second, even if they did have
a right to say what they said, nobody shut them
up. What happened in this case is that Dow
called on Verio to exercise their AUP to pull
Thing.net's connection. Verio agreed that that was
the right thing to do. Nobody went to Yes Men or
Thing.net and said, "You can't say that." Rather,
Verio went to them and said, "You can't say that
using our connection because it's against
our clearly defined AUP." There's nothing stopping
any of these guys from getting their message out
through another medium, until such time as Dow
sues them for every last dime they have. Speech--
free or otherwise-- has not been impacted here at
all.
The entire DMCA is a 1st Amendment
violation because it allows certain entities
(copyright holders) to bar someone elses speech
without a court trial.
By that
reasoning, libel laws are violations of the 1st
amendment, because threatening a newspaper with a
libel action can be enough to convince them to
pull a reporter's story without a court
trial. Your reasoning just doesn't hold up.
Trademark and copyright violations are not lawful,
even under the guise of free speech. The DMCA (now
Title 17) provided remedies for people who are
injured by a trademark or copyright violation.
That's all. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do
not collect $200 (Score:2)
by
Tom
(822) on Thursday January 02, @01:51PM (#5000088)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
|
here are lots of types of speech that are
not lawful.
And here I was thinking
that it's the job of the courts to decide
what's lawful and what not.
By that
reasoning, libel laws are violations of the 1st
amendment,
There is a fine difference
here. The libel laws have, over time, been
worked out so that they can be applied without
what is called the "chilling effect". The DMCA
has not.
Verio did not have much
of a choice in this matter. I work for an ISP,
and I've been involved in our own DMCA
discussions. The law is pretty clear that there
is a definite procedure for the ISP to follow,
and there is very little choice involved. You
get a takedown notice, you take the site down.
If your lawyers tell you anything else, please
give me their number so I can put them in touch
with our legal eagles (whom I'd love to convince
otherwise).
There is a "counter
notification" option in the DMCA. However, from
reading it my personal verdict is that it's a
farce.
There is a huge difference between
DMCA takedown notices and harsh letters from a
lawyer. The letter essentially says "if you do
this, we will sue you". You still have a choice
and can weigh your chances. A DMCA takedown
notice requires you to do something, and
with a deadline. You can ignore the lawyers
letter. You can't ignore a DMCA takedown
notice.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do
not collect $200 (Score:2)
by
Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Thursday January 02, @02:04PM (#5000213)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 27, @02:02PM) |
And here I was thinking that it's the job
of the courts to decide what's lawful and what
not.
Man, you need to do some
remedial reading on how the US government works.
The legislature decides what is and what
is not lawful. They have, for example, decided
that trademark infringement is against the law.
The court, at the first level anyway, is
only concerned with the facts of a case. The
court will decide if what a person does is
(again, for example) trademark infringement. The
court will not express an opinion as to whether
or not trademark infringement is against the
law.
To sum up: the legislature
decides what the laws are, and the court
decides whether a law has been broken based on
the facts of the case. Okay?
Verio did
not have much of a choice in this
matter.
Of course not. What these
guys were doing was clearly against Verio's AUP.
Verio should not have had any choice in the
matter. If they had, it would have made the
whole AUP meaningless. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do
not collect $200 (Score:2)
by
Tom
(822) on Friday January 03, @04:44AM (#5004967)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
|
I correct myself: The legislature writes the
laws. However, in a civilized country, only a
court can decide whether or not a specific event
was against the law or not. That's the point:
That you have the right to be heard by a court.
No such luck with the DMCA.
As for Verio:
You missed the point by a mile. The AUP are
something that Verio has written and that Verio
can choose to enforce or not. Lots of
choice there, and necessarily so. As I said, I
work for an ISP. Our AUPs prohibit malicious
activity. Part of my job is to decide which kind
of attacks, hacking attempts and script-kiddie
behaviour falls intot that category and which
not. Lots of choice there.
With a DMCA
takedown notice, there is no such choice. I've
been through the dance with our legal
department. If you're an ISP in the USA, then
the procedure is crystal clear and your choice
is essentially reduced to whether you yank the
site before or after lunch break.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do
not collect $200 (Score:2)
by
Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Friday January 03, @10:07AM (#5006094)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 27, @02:02PM) |
However, in a civilized country, only a
court can decide whether or not a specific event
was against the law or not.
Not
exactly. In order to be valid, a law has to be
specific. The law says which acts are
prohibited. The purpose of a criminal trial is
to determine facts: whether an event transpired
as the prosecution alleges, or as the defense
alleges.
For example, let's say somebody
ends up dead. Depending on the circumstances,
the person responsible for the killing may or
may not be a criminal. If the killer acted in
self-defense, for example, then no crime was
committed. For the different classes of criminal
homicide, the law defines various criteria. If
the killer did this, then the crime is
first-degree murder. If the killer did that,
then the crime is first-degree manslaughter. If
the killer did the other thing, then the crime
is criminally negligent homicide. And so
on.
The purpose of the trial will be to
ascertain the facts of the case. The prosecution
will say (for example) that the defendant killed
the victim because he was sleeping with the
defendant's wife. The defense will say that he
defendant killed the victim in self defense
because the defendant thought the victim was an
intruder. (Or maybe they'll say that the
defendant didn't do it at all.
Whatever.)
The jury, in the case of a
jury trial, is responsible for deciding the
facts. Did the defendant kill the victim or not?
If so, did he intend to kill the victim? If so,
did he plan the crime in advance? And so
on.
So the courts do not decide if a
specific event was against the law; the law
decides that in advance. The courts merely
decide what happened, and apply the law
accordingly.
The AUP are something
that Verio has written and that Verio can choose
to enforce or not.
Then what's the
point of having an AUP? You can't choose whether
or not to enforce a policy; that's arbitrary and
unfair to your customers. You have to enforce a
policy uniformly. Thing.net was violating
Verio's AUP. Dow informed Verio of that, and so
Verio had to pull the plug. Not because
of the DMCA. Because of their own
policy.
Trying to make this about the
DMCA is really stretching it. The complaint
cited the DMCA, which simply says that ISP's can
be liable in copyright infringement instances if
they receive notice of an infringement and do
not act on it. But the complaint also cited the
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and
the Lanham Act. This isn't a DMCA case any more
than it's a Lanham Act case.
The
important point is that Thing.net was violating
Verio's AUP. Verio had no choice at all, and
they did the right thing. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| | |
|
