faq code awards journals subscribe
older
stuff rob's page
preferences
submit
story advertising supporters
past
polls topics about bugs jobs
hof
|
DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences
activists | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 71 comments | Search Discussion |
|
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned
by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any
way. |
Does this surprise anyone (Score:2)
by MImeKillEr
(445828) on Monday December 23, @08:21AM (#4943803)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last
Journal: Thursday
September 26, @02:50PM) |
Given what happened to FatWallet over the Black Tuesday
adverts?
What the hell is DOW claiming under the DMCA?
The name? Give me a break. I hope there's such a HUGE stink
over this that it permanently tarnishes DOW and Verio's
reputations. Fscking corporate slimeballs. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:Does this surprise anyone
(Score:2) by MImeKillEr
(445828) on Monday December 23, @08:30AM (#4943840)
(http://slashdot.org/ |
Last Journal: Thursday
September 26, @02:50PM) |
From Dow's press release (at http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm
l [dowethics.com]) Wow. dowethics. Given the
circumstances, wouldn't that be an
oxymoron?
"The provider, Verio,
graciously complied with our letter citing the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Not only did they
shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as a good corporate
citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire network
(Thing.net) of websites many of which, while unrelated
to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial
purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis
and critique of society and corporate
behaviour.
We applaud the courage of Verio in
taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the
"artists, activists," and other blatantly
non-commercial users of Thing.net. That message can be
stated simply: Corporate America will defend its right
to Free Speech on the internet rigorously. Verio
ensured that this message was understood by giving
Thing.net a 60-day eviction notice following the
network's restoration to the internet. This is the
kind of justice which Dow can afford, and which we
hope will become a model for the future of the
internet."
So, apparently DOW now would
like to think of themselves as net critics and that
since Thing.net is hosting sites that "serve no
commercial purpose, being dedicated to the
unproductive analysis and critique of society and
corporate behaviour" then everything's ok and we
should all just grab out ankles
now..
"Corporate America will defend its
right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously."
Oh, ok. Since those using Thing.Net aren't a
corporation with a bunch of high-priced lawyers they
don't get to use free speech? Thanks a lot,
assholes.
This is the kind of justice which
Dow can afford, and which we hope will become a model
for the future of the internet." Translations: We
sikked our hybrid lawyer-dogs on Verio and they put
out quicker than a Freshman cheerleader at the Senior
prom. We 0wnz them now. We will 0wnz j00
too.
Oh yeah, I got first post. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
by MImeKillEr
(445828) on Monday December 23, @08:48AM (#4943931)
(http://slashdot.org/
| Last Journal: Thursday
September 26, @02:50PM) |
Wow. That's pretty fucked up. Their site looks
TOO much like Dow's.
Dow may not have too
hard a time proving their case. However,
Thing.Net's owners *might* come out ahead on this.
It's still a parody site -- even though there
aren't any disclaimers stating as much. Certainly
will be interesting to see where this
goes...
As for my getting roped in. All I
can say is
DOH!
Thanks for pointing
it out.
Mental note: Consume at least TWO
cups of cofee before posting comments to Slashdot
in the morning... |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @09:16AM (#4944043)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
It's still a parody site -- even though
there aren't any disclaimers stating as
much.
Where's the line between parody
and fraud? If I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I
think kiddie porn is awesome!" that could
reasonably be construed as parody. It's fairly
absurd, so only the most gullible person would
believe it. But if I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I
vote Democrat!" that's not obviously parody. It
sounds perfectly reasonable, and if one didn't
know that Mimekiller is a staunch Dewey
Socialist, one might not think twice about that
statement.
These guys could have saved
themselves a lot of trouble by calling their
site "Dowe Chemical" or something. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @10:07AM (#4944317)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
Arg. You go this way, point go
that way.
My intent was to pick
something so absurd that it would be obvious
that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Pick
your own example. "I'm Mimekiller and I'm a
six-foot-tall invisible rabbit."
Whatever.
But the larger point still
stands, I think. Does parody include some
aesthetic value? If so, who identifies it as
such? Because, to me, the stuff we're talking
about this morning just isn't funny. It's
absurd, but just barely so, and not at all
funny. Does that mean it's not parody?
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:2) by uncoveror
(570620) on Monday December 23, @04:38PM (#4947252)
(http://www.uncoveror.com/)
|
You might want to look up the word, satire.
It is not always meant to be ha ha funny. Satire
and parody are frequently political and preachy
on porpose. The artists here are making a valid
point about Dow Chemicals' irresponsibility, and
callousness. There is nothing ha ha funny about
it, nor is there supposed to be. The point of it
was to make youi angry, or uneasy, and to
educate. It works for that purpose. I would also
like to point out that Dow could have avoided
the very negative publicity they hope to avoid
by ignoring such political message sites. Now
more people than even before know that Dow is
Union Carbide. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @04:53PM (#4947377)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
The artists here are making a valid point
about Dow Chemicals' irresponsibility, and
callousness.
That has nothing to do
with it. They've produced a web site, and are
sending out press releases, in the name of Dow
Chemical. Whatever your purpose, that's
misrepresentation, defamation, and, at worst,
fraud.
If they'd created a web site for a
fictitious chemical company that bears a
striking resemblance to Dow, everything would be
cool. But when they used the Dow name, and logo,
and represented themselves as Dow to the press,
they crossed the line.
I would also
like to point out that Dow could have avoided
the very negative publicity they hope to avoid
by ignoring such political message
sites.
Let me say it again. These
guys sent a press release out through the
newswire and through regular channels claiming
to be Dow. It doesn't matter why they did it.
They misrepresented themselves, and that's
against the law. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:2) by unitron
(5733) <unitron@tacc.net>
on Monday December 23, @05:30PM (#4947651)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
"But if I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I vote
Democrat!"..."
Dead giveaway. Real Democrats (and us
anti-Republicans) can tell the difference
between an adjective and a noun and vote
Democratic, not Democrat, whereas Republicans
always use Democrat when they should say
Democratic because they want to make it a dirty
word the same way that they did with the word
"liberal". |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Does this surprise
anyone (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @05:53PM (#4947821)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
Real Democrats (and us anti-Republicans)
can tell the difference between an adjective and
a noun and vote Democratic, not
Democrat
Uh... seeing as how the only
strictly grammatically correct word in that
context would be an adverb-- "vote
Democratically"-- we have to fall back to common
idiom. When one is stumping, one says, "On
November 4th, remember to vote McGuffin!" That's
a noun, a proper noun to be precise. So saying
"vote Democrat!" is the preferred idiom over
"vote Democratic," unless you want to use the
whole proper noun and say "vote Democratic
Party!"
In other words, you're wrong.
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Except that... (Score:2)
by Big
Sean O (317186) on Monday December 23,
@01:18PM (#4945666)
(http://www.officemonkey.org/)
|
I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the
parody site (after reading the whole thing), but I
don't think it was out of line. If someone was
misled by the parody site, then they're not
careful readers. They have been trolled. They have
lost. Have a nice day.
I thought it was
very very funny. In a doubleunplusgood funny sorta
way. I've got to give credit to the writer. S/he
has pegged the corporate doubletalk that makes up
so much corporate communication.
I do think
the site should have a 'parody' tag down at the
bottom.
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Except
that... (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @09:16PM (#4949170)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the
parody site (after reading the whole thing), but
I don't think it was out of line. If someone was
misled by the parody site, then they're not
careful readers.
Remember, this
isn't just about the site. It's about the press
release that these guys sent out with Dow's name
all over it. There was absolutely nothing about
this press release that even implied that it was
a parody. It looked like a perfectly genuine, if
insanely horrible, corporate statement. The only
clue that it's not completely genuine is the
fact that the press release refers to a past
president of Dow as if he were the current
president, and I only know that because I looked
it up while fact-checking the release. The name
"Panaline Boneril" sounds suspiciously like an
anagram, but what the heck is "a plebeian or
Lenin" supposed to mean?
This is clearly
defamation and fraud. Have a look. (This copy
was emailed to the BBC's "Breakfast" show, and
was included in the lawyer's correspondence to
Verio.)
From: Dow Chemical Corporation
[SMTP:press@dow-chemical.com] Sent: Tuesday,
December 03, 2002 9:49 AM To: Breakfast R5L
<breakfast@bbc.co.uk> Subject: DOW
ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS
POSITION
December 3, 2002
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
mailto:press@dow-chemical.com
DOW
ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS
POSITION Company responds to activist
concerns with concrete action points
In
response to growing public outrage over its
handling of the Bhopal disaster's legacy, Dow
Chemical (http://www.dow-chemical.com) has
issued a statement explaining why it is unable
to more actively address the problem.
"We
are being portrayed as a heartless giant which
doesn't care about the 20,000 lives lost due to
Bhopal over the years," said Dow President and
CEO Michael D. Parker. "But this just isn't
true. Many individuals within Dow feel
tremendous sorrow about the Bhopal disaster, and
many individuals within Dow would like the
corporation to admit its responsibility, so that
the public can then decide on the best course of
action, as is appropriate in any
democracy.
"Unfortunately, we have
responsibilities to our shareholders and our
industry colleagues that make action on Bhopal
impossible. And being clear about this has been
a very big step."
On December 3, 1984,
Union Carbide--now part of Dow--accidentally
killed 5,000 residents of Bhopal, India, when
its pesticide plant sprung a leak. It abandoned
the plant without cleaning it up, and since
then, an estimated 15,000 more people have died
from complications, most resulting from
chemicals released into the
groundwater.
Although legal
investigations have consistently pinpointed
Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and
Dow have had to publicly deny these findings.
After the accident, Union Carbide compensated
victims' families between US$300 and US$500 per
victim.
"We understand the anger and
hurt," said Dow Spokesperson Bob Questra. "But
Dow does not and cannot acknowledge
responsibility. If we did, not only would we be
required to expend many billions of dollars on
cleanup and compensation--much worse, the public
could then point to Dow as a precedent in other
big cases. 'They took responsibility; why can't
you?' Amoco, BP, Shell, and Exxon all have
ongoing problems that would just get much worse.
We are unable to set this precedent for
ourselves and the industry, much as we would
like to see the issue resolved in a humane and
satisfying way."
Shareholders reacted to
the Dow statement with enthusiasm. "I'm happy
that Dow is being clear about its aims," said
Panaline Boneril, who owns 10,000 shares,
"because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's
clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping
the share price from expressing its full
potential. Although a real solution is not
immediately possible because of Dow's
commitments to the larger industry issues, there
is new hope in management's exceptional new
clarity on the
Read
the rest of this comment... |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Except
that... (Score:0) by
Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 24,
@05:14AM (#4950959)
|
"There was was absolutely nothing about this
press release that even implied that it was a
parody." Except, of course, the
content.
"The only clue that it's not
completely genuine is the fact that the press
release refers to a past president of Dow as if
he were the current president" Except, of
course, the content.
"This is clearly
defamation and fraud." If a George W. Bush
double appears on SNL and declares war on NYC,
it's neither defamatory nor fraud
either. It's called a parody.
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Now that's
funny! (Score:2) by Big
Sean O (317186) on Tuesday December 24,
@08:11AM (#4951303)
(http://www.officemonkey.org/)
|
This one is quite artfully done. But comeon,
there are a couple of bits that are obviously
spoofs:
"because Bhopal is a recurrent
problem that's clogging our value chain and
ultimately keeping the share price from
expressing its full potential."
"We are
unable to set this precedent for ourselves and
the industry, much as we would like to see the
issue resolved in a humane and satisfying
way."
"well-known products like
Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent
Orange"
"Although legal investigations
have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as
culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to
publicly deny these findings."
I assert
that a careful reader would know this was a
parody. Granted, a junior production assistant
at the BBC might not get it, and some
slashdotters may have been trolled. But we all
know we hardly read the comments (much less the
articles).
Sadly, there are very few
careful readers. I also concede that both of
these articles should have the word parody on
them. Since they did not, I think Dow has a
case.
Interestingly enough, the stunt may
have worked. I've been involved with the
environment, hazardous chemicals, and public
safety for my entire career, and I've learned
more about Bhopal in the last day than I have in
the last 10 years. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
I wish (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23, @08:32AM
(#4943847)
|
someone fucking silenced slashdot already
|
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
I don't know about these guys.
(Score:2, Informative) by GigsVT (208848) on
Monday December 23, @08:34AM (#4943856)
(http://www.electronicschat.org/
| Last Journal: Saturday
December 21, @07:32PM) |
http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm
l
They have that linked as "Dow's response" to the
incident, apparently yet another parody site, but I was sure
confused at first. I could see how someone could be misled to
believe it was a real Dow site.
These guys are pushing
the line a little too far I think. The site looks a whole lot
like an official site. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Naaa, the DMCA will never be abused...
(Score:1) by GeekWithGuns
(466361) on Monday December 23, @08:37AM (#4943879)
(http://www.xaox.net/)
|
IANAL (God I hate it when people start posts like that),
but Wouldn't this be a great case to challenge the DMCA with?
If all the facts are straight here then DOW Chemicals has
enfringed on the first amendment rights of the person who
wrote the parody. Bill of rights should proove that this law
at least in this case should not be applied, but at best could
make the DMCA unconstitutional.
If that dosn't stir the pot, how about a lawsuit aganst
Verio. The DMCA says that the ISP (in this case it should be
Thing.Net must take down the material. DOW knew that Thing.Net
would have complied only to allow the counter notice and
reposting part of the DMCA to go into effect or just fired
back with a "Liar, Liar, we have Lawyers too" letter since
they specialize in activists sites. DOW chose wisely and
picked the ISP's ISP and pretty much guaranteed that Thing.Net
would have to bow to the pressure. And now Verio is cutting
off Thing.Net in 60 days?!? The DMCA dosen't say anything
about that! Get a lawyer and sue them to hell! |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Free Speech (Score:1) by zietlow (199661)
on Monday December 23, @08:38AM (#4943885)
(http://www.ninja-assassin.com/)
|
From the Site http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm
l [dowethics.com]
Corporate Freedom of Speech
is one of our most precious Freedoms
Now granted I
didn't see the site (mirror anyone?) but what about Personal
free speech? In this day and age of governemnt where there
doesn't seem to be much for freedoms unless you invest a
couple hundred thousand in your favorite politicians wallet.
Why does DOW get free speech and they can threaten someone for
exercising thiers?
Was the company on Thing.net
causing them harm, cutting into thier billions of dollars of
profits for the year? |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:Free Speech (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23,
@08:40AM (#4943896)
|
That's the parody site. That's the whole problem
Dow has with the parody site, is that it looks a whole
lot like an official statement. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Legal grounds (Score:2) by
MImeKillEr
(445828) on Monday December 23, @08:41AM (#4943898)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last
Journal: Thursday
September 26, @02:50PM) |
Before anyone stars foaming at the mouth about use of the
Dow name (and even the look of their corporate page, which I
didn't see the specific mention of) take a look at the
following links:
http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,9452,
00.html [business2.com]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS
.html [cornell.edu]
http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/
[chillingeffects.org]
http://overlawyered.com/topics/silicon.html
[overlawyered.com]
|
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
If one good thing could come of
this... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on
Monday December 23, @08:44AM (#4943913)
|
If one good thing could come of this, it would be that
everyone would stop and think about what might have happened
eighteen years ago that Dow would like you to have forgotten.
Dow's actions are presumably to try and stop this bad PR from
resurfacing. It's something that's been lost to the public
consciousness for a while now...
Dow owns Union Carbide, responsible for killing thousands
in Bhopal, India through multiple dangerous accidents
in its chemical plants. Despite Dow putting a caring face on [bhopal.com]
(the site is owned by Dow, though it isn't clear by looking at
the main page), the aftermath
continues [thirdworldtraveler.com].
A fairly good summary of the event can be found here
[chemsafety.gov], although it doesn't quite reveal the way
Union Carbide pretty much tried to ignore the Indian legal
system, ignoring repeated summons, allegedly trying to abandon
responsibility for the accident altogether. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:If one good thing could come of
this... (Score:0) by Anonymous
Coward on Monday December 23, @09:19AM (#4944053)
|
Jesus fucking christ, dude. Ever heard the
expression "the sins of the father?" Dow had no
relationship with Union Carbide back then, so they
shouldn't be blamed for anything now.
What
happened in Bhopal was a tragedy. But fucking get over
it. The world has moved on. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:If one good thing could come of
this... (Score:0) by Anonymous
Coward on Monday December 23, @09:21AM (#4944059)
|
The people still suffering in Bhopal have not
moved on, and Dow still hasn't made full
restitution.
Many are suffering needlessly and need aide, and
Union Carbide hasn't made right under Dow's
direction. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:If one good thing could come of
this... (Score:0) by Anonymous
Coward on Monday December 23, @09:29AM (#4944098)
|
People will always suffer, everywhere.
Responsibility has limits. This morning I turned
on my lamp next to my bed. When I did, light shone
out and caused a startled bird to fly out of the
tree next to my window. That bird flew out of the
neighborhood and over the highway, where it
startled a passing motorist. That motorist slammed
on his brakes and the guy behind him plowed into
his bumper at 80 miles an hour. The lawyer will be
showing up at my door any minute with the papers
naming me in the lawsuit. Because, dear god, if
I'd only kept my lamp off this all could have been
prevented.
Bhopal is ancient history. Come
join the rest of us in the 21st century. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
DMCA? HUH? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @09:13AM (#4944028)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
Can anybody dig up independent confirmation that this has
anything at all to do with the DMCA? The RTMark press release
mentions it in the context, "Dow was not amused, and sent a
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint to Verio,
which immediately cut Thing.net off the internet for fifteen
hours." But that doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
More importantly, the New York Times article on
the subject (here
[nytimes.com]), makes no reference at all to the DMCA, instead
saying that "Dow's lawyers contacted Verio to complain that
the site infringed on its trademarks, among other sins." If
the DMCA were involved, I'm reasonably sure that the NYT
article would mention it.
If I had to take a wild-ass
guess, I'd say that what probably happened is that Dow simply
told Verio that they want the offending web site shut down,
and possibly that the site was making unauthorized use of
their trademarks or some such. Verio said to themselves, "On
the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills,
but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the
other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational
corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a
good relationship with them." And they made a business
decision.
If that's what happened, I really don't see a
reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience
for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing,
nobody did anything illegal, or even
unethical.
(Incidentally, the NYT article also says,
"When [Staehle] called Verio to ask why his entire network had
been unplugged instead of the sole offending site, he said, a
Verio lawyer told him that the Thing had violated its policies
repeatedly and that its contract would be
terminated."
The article goes on: "Verio had shut down
part of the Thing once before. In 1999 the online toy retailer
eToys.com asked a California court to stop an online arts
group from using its longtime Web address etoy.com. The
Electronic Disturbance Theater, a Thing client, staged a
virtual protest by overloading the retailer's site with
traffic during the holiday season. Verio blocked access to one
of the Thing's computers until the protest site's owners
agreed to take it offline."
Sounds like Thing.net isn't
merely the mild-mannered parody site it claims to be. Parody
is one thing. Actual disruption is something else altogether.
Though they're not commenting, maybe Verio had some really
good reasons to do what they did.) |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:3,
Informative) by Zapman
(2662) on Monday December 23, @10:19AM (#4944383)
|
Verio [probably] said to themselves, "On the
one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their
bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue
for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a
gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us
a lot of money if we have a good relationship with
them." And they made a business
decision.
If that's what happened, I
really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes,
this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it
happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything
illegal, or even unethical.
I won't go into
the rest of your post, which I thought was well and
good. However, while I see the logic of your 'wild
assed guess', I disagree with your statement that it's
'not unethical'.
Say you have a mindspring.com
account. On your personal web page, you post that
'bill gates of borg' icon that he's reputed to hate so
much. He causes a letter to be sent to mindspring, and
your account is revoked, using the same logic you just
called 'a business decision'.
This is precisely
the kind of thing that power leads to, if it's not
curbed. Look at the nobles of the middle ages. Not
held accountable, they could kill anyone they wished
without repurcussions. This is just a modern day
version of that.
We must protect fredom of
speech (obviously keeping in mind the limits WRT
slander and libel). We must we must protect those
liberties.
Now, if thing.net violated libel and
slander laws, they get what is coming to them. If they
didn't, then what happened is unethical, and should be
illegal.
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:3,
Insightful) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @10:33AM (#4944493)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
Um. Verio is a private company. (Well, they're
publicly traded, but they're owned by private
individuals. You know what I mean.) They are
entitled to do business with whomever they
please.
Nobody went to these guys and said,
"Hey, you can't say that." (At least, not yet.)
Rather, Verio said, "If you wanna do that, get your
connectivity somewhere else."
Verio is
completely and totally free to do that. Just because
these guys have a Constitutionally protected right
to say (nearly) whatever they want doesn't mean that
any particular provider of services is obligated to
do business with them.
Let me give you a
real-world for-instance. About six years ago I was
working as a pre-sales engineer for a fairly major
computer company. (You've heard of them.) Somebody
came to us and said, "I want to build a web site,
and I need a very powerful server to do it." I,
along with the sales rep, talked to him, and he
said, after some probing, that he wanted to get into
the "adult entertainment" business. Basically he
wanted to build a porn site.
That's entirely
legal. Nothing wrong with it, as far as the law is
concerned. But the sales rep I was working with said
to me, after the meeting, that he simply didn't want
to do business with this guy. He had an opinion on
porn-- not necessarily the same as mine, but I
respected it-- and he acted accordingly. We never
called the guy back, and we never returned any of
his subsequent calls.
Life is full of little
decisions like that. Ours was made on moral grounds;
the sales rep I was working with had a moral
objection to porn. Verio's decision was probably
made purely on business grounds. Everybody--
individual and corporation alike-- is entitled to
make those decisions for themselves.
I stand
by my statement that what Verio did was neither
illegal, unethical, nor wrong.
Say you
have a mindspring.com account. On your personal web
page, you post that 'bill gates of borg' icon that
he's reputed to hate so much. He causes a letter to
be sent to mindspring, and your account is revoked,
using the same logic you just called 'a business
decision'.
Get an account with another
service provider. If you can't find one that will
give you an account, take out a bank loan and start
your own. If you can't start your own, then get your
message out through another medium. Public access
television. Letters to the editor. Flyers under
windshield wipers. Whatever.
Freedom of
speech is not being affected here in any
way.
Not held accountable, they could kill
anyone they wished without repurcussions. This is
just a modern day version of
that.
Exaggerate much? Nobody has killed
anybody. Let's get this back down to earth, okay?
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:2)
by Zapman
(2662) on Monday December 23, @10:54AM (#4944635)
|
As an asside, 'private company' generally
means a company like google, owned by a small
group of indivduals. Verio is a public company. It
is owned by it's shareholders.
Your example
from your pre-sales day is a totally different
world. Verio had already decided to do business
with thing.net, and had written a contract to do
so. You and this 'someone' had NOT started doing
business. You're totally free to choose who to do
business with. However, once you start, it depends
on the contract.
I very strongly believe
that if you say (like in a contract) that you're
going to do something, you need to follow through
with it.
As for your 'get an account with
another service provider', sure that's possible.
However, if BillG was really after you, and if all
the service providors followed your logic, then
you would be silenced, in the medium of the
internet.
As for the reference to the
middle ages, it's something called an analogy. A
story used to illustrate a point. Exageration?
Maybe. However the nobles DID work quite hard to
destroy opposition. Why do you think the French
Revolution was so keen to have a free press? The
nobles silenced many a newspaper. Sure, they could
have gone back to writing the things by hand (the
equivelent of you're suggestion that they should
change medium), but that would have been much less
effecient.
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH?
(Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @11:07AM (#4944671)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
As an asside, 'private company' generally
means...
Yeah, did you see the thing
I wrote up there inside parentheses?
Thanks.
Verio had already decided to
do business with thing.net, and had written a
contract to do so.
And, undoubtedly,
that contract included plenty of clauses
describing conditions under which either party
could terminate.
However, if BillG was
really after you, and if all the service
providors followed your logic, then you would be
silenced, in the medium of the
internet.
So? Try as I might, I can't
get a network TV show. I'm effectively silenced
in the medium of network television. Is this a
free speech issue? No, of course
not.
As for the reference to the
middle ages, it's something called an
analogy.
Actually, it's something
called hyperbole. And something called wildly
inapplicable. And something called a waste of
breath. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:1)
by wolfgangsta
(636278) on Monday December 23, @08:39PM (#4948977)
|
Thing.net is an ISP and not a parody site. The
parody site was on a co-location server of one of our
paying customers. Now, if Verio has a problem with the
"Yes Men," they know damn well the IP address of their
server and it would have be easy for them to block
that address. Instead they choose to shut down the
whole c-class net after leaving a message on our
answering machine giving us 20 minutes to pull the
plug on that machine.
What did you say? "Parody is one thing. Actual
disruption is something else?" Now, who is disrupting
who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300
paying customers for 16 hours? What about their
rights?
As to your question about whether the DMCA was
invoked: yes it was. The Verio legal department told
me, that they are "required to terminate our contract
because of repeat infringements of the Digital
Milleneum Copyright Act."
There you go.
http://www.thing.net http://thing.net/switch http://secure.thing.net/backbone
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:2)
by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @09:00PM (#4949104)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
Instead they choose to shut down the whole
c-class net after leaving a message on our answering
machine giving us 20 minutes to pull the plug on
that machine.
According to Verio,
Thing.net has been in violation of Verio's AUP for
some time. Whether that's true or not is between you
guys, but that's their opinion, and it explains why
they shut you down.
And, in all fairness,
after they restored your connectivity and you asked
for 3-4 months to transition to another provider,
they did agree to give you 90 days before shutting
you down for good, right? I'm not trying to say that
they're right and you're wrong, but it's not quite
accurate to imply that they're being completely
unreasonable, either.
Now, who is
disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off
service to 300 paying customers for 16
hours?
The difference between a denial of
service attack against a company that some people
find to be politically unacceptable and a company's
cutting off a customer that they claim is in
material breach of their AUP should be blindingly
obvious. You can't really put the two situations on
the same level.
As to your question about
whether the DMCA was invoked: yes it
was.
Yes, I heard. Early this morning I
asked for independent confirmation of the DMCA part,
and I got it from a couple of different sources,
including from Dow's lawyers. I appreciate your
mentioning it, though. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:1)
by plagiarist
(87743) on Tuesday December 24, @02:52AM (#4950561)
|
The difference between a denial of service
attack against a company that some people find to
be politically unacceptable and a company's
cutting off a customer that they claim is in
material breach of their AUP should be blindingly
obvious. You can't really put the two situations
on the same level.
What denial of service attack? This is
about a parody site criticizing a corporation, not
about a denial of service attack. Dow's website
was still up - it was parodied, not DOS'ed - but
Verio responded by shutting down the Yes Men's
parody site - *and* the sites of approximately 299
unrelated Thing clients. (Thing didn't do the
parody, the Yes Men did.)
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH?
(Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Tuesday December 24, @02:59AM (#4950595)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
One of the reasons Verio cited for shutting
down the entire Thing network was a denial of
service attack launched some time ago against
etoys.com or etoy.com or whichever it was. There
was a domain name dispute at the time, and
somebody on Thing's network decided to do
something about it by DOS'ing the company's site
right before a big holiday.
Verio's
position is that Thing's network got cut off
because of a pattern of repeated AUP violations,
not just one incident. Straw that broke the
camel's back, sort of thing. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH?
(Score:1) by plagiarist
(87743) on Tuesday December 24, @03:51AM (#4950746)
|
The article (I assume you are referring to
the NYT one) didn't say that *Verio* cited that
as a reason for shutting down Thing's network;
the article's writer seems to have brought that
up on his own. It seems clear that Verio's
current actions have been provoked by the recent
Dow parody, not an unrelated incident from
1999.
Also, remember there are 2 shutdowns
under discussion here: the impending termination
of Thing's contract and the initial 16-hour
shutdown of the *whole* Thing net after initial
complaints about the Dow parody. The 16-hour
shutdown doesn't seem to have to do with
anything other than the Dow parody
... and that was what wolfgangsta
was referring to when he said,
What did you say? "Parody is one
thing. Actual disruption is something else?"
Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio
cutting off service to 300 paying customers for
16 hours? What about their rights?
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:1)
by dodomeister
(456657) on Tuesday December 24, @05:31AM (#4951000)
|
The difference between a denial of service
attack against a company that some people find to
be politically unacceptable and a company's
cutting off a customer that they claim is in
material breach of their AUP should be blindingly
obvious. You can't really put the two situations
on the same level. No, you can't put it on
the same level. One is a targeted political action
(and you can argue about the means). The second
is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing
over the rights of completely unrelated
businesses. What problems do have Dow/Verio with
an institution like PS1/MOMA? |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:DMCA? HUH?
(Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Tuesday December 24, @09:15AM (#4951529)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
One is a targeted political action (and
you can argue about the means).
Look,
I don't mean to delve into hyperbole here, but
blowing up a busload of school kids has also
been referred to as "targeted political action."
The ends do not justify the means. The
fact that a group of people has a political
problem with a company doesn't give them the
right to cause them harm by maliciously
disrupting their means of doing
business.
The second is behaving like
an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the
rights of completely unrelated
businesses.
What rights? When you
sign a contract with a service provider, you
both agree to the terms. They agree to provide
you with the service, and you agree not to
violate their terms of use. If you violate their
terms of use, you can and should be cut off, if
the contract so stipulates, with no prior
notice.
This case has absolutely
nothing to do with rights. It has to do with
following the rules, and the consequences of not
doing so. If you're going to break the rules,
don't whine about the consequences. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
I'm little unclear about the
specifics... (Score:1) by RCO (597148) on Monday
December 23, @09:27AM (#4944091)
|
As a few of you have already stated, I would like to know
how they are using the DCMA on this. I mean yeah, I can see
how DOW probably wouldn't like the parody, but if that's all
it takes, the US Prison system is about to become the funniest
place on earth with all the comedians that are about to be
sent up. But as things are stated in this article, it sounds
as if Things.net my have a case against Dow for the abuse of
DCMA. The flip side of it is even if Dow is proven wrong, what
are the odds that they will fix the situation, if history is
any indication... |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Are you kidding me!?! (Score:1)
by DonFinch (584056)
<.ude.ucv.
.ta. .cnifjd2s.> on Monday December 23, @09:37AM (#4944152)
|
Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as a
good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire
network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while unrelated
to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial purpose,
being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of
society and corporate behaviour. We applaud the courage of
Verio in taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the
"artists, activists," and other blatantly non-commercial users
of Thing.net. That message can be stated simply: Corporate
America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet
rigorously. So "anylsis of society" should not be
protected under the 1st amendment according to Dow? And whats
this about "non-commercial users". Apperently Dow chemical
feels only those with billions of dollars should be allowed to
speak their minds! Please tell me this PISSES YOU OFF!! of
course this speech is blatantly non-commercial and
unproductive analysis and critique of Dow FSCKED ideas of
freedom, and therfore I should be shot and my corpse burned.
|
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:Are you kidding me!?!
(Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @10:37AM (#4944514)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
oops.... luser award right
here
No, no! That's exactly the point.
You're an otherwise entirely reasonable and
sensible person, and yet at first glance you were
fooled into believing that this page belonged to
Dow, and served as an official corporate
communication from them. There's no shame in being
fooled here; the people who put up that page went
to great lengths to make it look completely
authentic, even going so far as to put a copyright
notice on it.
This is precisely the point.
Given that the parody nature of this page isn't
remotely obvious, it seems that Dow has a very
strong case against these guys. For defamation, at
the very least, and possibly even for fraudulent
representation. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Are you kidding
me!?! (Score:0) by Anonymous
Coward on Tuesday December 24, @04:12AM (#4950814)
|
Before we start calling these people names
for stealing poor little Dow's image for a
moment, let's look at what some other players
are doing with other people's images:
Item 1: In which a bunch of extremely poor
peasants from all over the world "protest" the
Earth Summit in Johannesburg: The
Fake Parade [freezerbox.com]
Item 2: In which a host of "people" oppose
scientific research that shows problems with
biotechnology: The
Fake Persuaders [guardian.co.uk]
There are of course hundreds of other
examples, some better known (the American
Smokers' Alliance), some less.
Finally this technique is being used in the
right direction!! |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Are you kidding
me!?! (Score:1) by dodomeister
(456657) on Tuesday December 24, @05:46AM
(#4951036)
|
oops.... luser award right
here
No, no! That's exactly the
point. rightly so; Parody, according to
the Encyclopædia Britannica, is: (Greek par“a
song sung alongside another”), in literature, a
form of satirical criticism or comic mockery
that imitates the style and manner of a
particular writer or school of writers
...
Given that the parody
nature of this page isn't remotely obvious
If we really are ready to believe what
the fake DOW press releases are telling us, it's
not just DOW having a problem here. It's
probably more a serious case of collective
nuttery.
In logos we trust! |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Bad misstep... (Score:1) by
lynx_user_abroad
(323975) on Monday December 23, @10:07AM (#4944314)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
I hope the parody site (whoever owns dowethics) hasn't
made a stoopid mistake with the copyright notice at the
bottom. Unless I'm wrong, they are not allowed to claim
copyright by "The Dow Company" unless they own a registered
trademark to that name (unlikely), and if they've falsely
attributed the copyright they could lose their copyright to
their parody page and be subject to hefty fines for their
false claims.
Losing copyright to the page would make defense of the page
(as a parody) more difficult in several ways...
Even if I was a lawyer, you would be foolish to believe
I'm licensed to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you
currently reside.
|
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global
Playground (Score:2) by Vryl (31994) on
Monday December 23, @10:18AM (#4944374)
|
http://www.dowethics.com/r/Homepage/index.html
[dowethics.com]
Did you know? Dow is
responsible for the birth of the modern environmental
movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about the
side-effects of a Dow product, DDT, on North American bird
populations. Her work created a groundswell of concern,
sparking the birth of many of today's environmental action
groups. Another example of Dow's commitment to Living.
Improved daily. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
the letter (Score:0) by
Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23, @10:57AM (#4944656)
|
LAW OFFICES HOWARD, PHILLIPS & ANDERSEN A
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GREGORY D. PHILLIPS 560 East
200 South, Suite 300 Telephone: (801) 366-7471 Direct Dial:
(801) 366-7707 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Facsimile: (801)
366-7706 E-Mail: gdp@hpalaw.com
December 3,
2002
VIA EMAIL (abuse@verio.com; support@verio.com;
dlthompson@verio.com; copyright@verio.com) and FACSIMILE
(303) 708-2445
Verio, Inc. 8005 South Chester
Street, Suite 200 Englewood, CO 80112
Re:
DOW-CHEMICAL.COM
Dear Verio:
This law firm
represents The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") on intellectual
property enforcement matters. I an agent of Dow authorized to
act on its behalf.
Dow has recently discovered that the
operator(s) of dow-chemical.com (the "Website") is blatantly
violating Dow's intellectual property rights. Dow provides
this notification of infringement pursuant to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"). The Website violates
Dow's rights in several different ways:
1. Violation of
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The Website
displays numerous trademarks, images, texts and designs taken
directly from Dow's website located at dow.com. This material
is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, in
whole or in part, without the express written authorization of
Dow. A representative list of the addresses within the web
site where Dow's trademarks, copyrighted images, texts and
designs appear is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
I
declare in good faith that the use of the material referenced
in Exhibit B is not authorized by the copyright owner, its
agent or the law.
Accordingly, Dow requests that
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act that Verio immediately cease to provide hosting
services for this domain.
2. Violation of the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
The domain
name, dow-chemical.com, violates Dow's trademark rights by
incorporating the world-famous and distinctive trademark
Dow(R). The term Dow(R) together with its corresponding design
trademarks or logos, are duly registered trademarks in
numerous countries, including the United States. Use of these
trademarks, or any confusingly similar variations thereof,
without the express, written consent of Dow, violates state
and federal law, is misleading to the public, and constitutes
a misappropriation of the goodwill and reputation developed by
Dow.
The United States Congress has enacted the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which makes it
unlawful for a person to register a domain name that
incorporates the famous trademarks of another and provides for
statutory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 per domain name
against those who do so. See 15 U.S.C. §1117(d).
3.
Violation of the Lanham Act.
The Website also violates
Dow's trademark rights by displaying Dow's design trademarks
and logos on the web site.
The Website's content is
defamatory to Dow. The operator(s) of the Website has issued a
press release directing the media and the public to this site
in an attempt to damage the reputation and tarnish the
goodwill associated with Dow, its products and services. A
copy of the press release is attached he
Read
the rest of this comment... |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:the letter (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December
23, @09:19PM (#4949184)
|
No. If you doubt the letter's veracity,
fucking get off your lazy ass and call Mr. Phillips
yourself at (801) 366-7707. Or email him at
gdp@hpalaw.com.
Fucking lazy Slashdot
cocksuckers. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Behold the power of a SLAPP suit!
(Score:2) by uncoveror
(570620) on Monday December 23, @11:59AM (#4945018)
(http://www.uncoveror.com/)
|
This is a perfect example of a greedy corporation
squashing free speech in the name of its lord and savior, the
almighty dollar. The artists, called the Yes Men, hosted by
thing.net were making a valid point with their biting satire,
and adding a "this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract
from the icky feeling their satire was intended to evoke. If
they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the test case
to overturn the DMCA. It is more likely, unfortunately, that
Thing.net will die, and this Slapp will be successful. That
will be a tragedy. I would love to republish the materials in
question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men agree.
|
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP
suit! (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Monday December 23, @01:04PM (#4945555)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
This is a perfect example of a greedy
corporation squashing free speech in the name of its
lord and savior, the almighty
dollar.
Actually, it appears to be a
perfect example of misguided souls, despite their good
intentions, making unauthorized use of a company's
legally protected trademarks, and getting their pee
pee's smacked because of it.
The artists,
called the Yes Men, hosted by thing.net were making a
valid point with their biting satire, and adding a
"this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract from
the icky feeling their satire was intended to
evoke.
Valid point or not, it is not okay
to use somebody else's trademarks without their
permission. The message would have been just as clear
without the malicious intent to deceive.
If
they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the
test case to overturn the DMCA.
The DMCA
claim is only one part of the complaint against these
guys. The complaint also cites the Anti-cybersquatting
Protection Act ("dow-chemical.com") and the Lanham Act
(illegal use of trademarks). Also, these guys issued a
false press release in Dow's name intended to defame
Dow publicly. But most importantly, everything these
guys did, practically, was in violation of Verio's
AUP.
I would love to republish the materials
in question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men
agree.
Go right ahead. Wonderful thing
about freedom of speech. Even if you're kicked off of
one podium, you can always climb onto another. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP
suit! (Score:1) by dodomeister
(456657) on Tuesday December 24, @06:00AM (#4951057)
|
Actually, it appears to be a perfect example
of misguided souls, despite their good intentions,
making unauthorized use of a company's legally
protected trademarks, and getting their pee pee's
smacked because of it. It's more like that an
important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men
making funny faces. And as they couldn't reach out
fast enough, they decided neither to sue the Yes Men
nor asked their ISP thing.net for cooperation, but
colluded with Verio to shut down the whole service
of thing.net, maybe as some kind of a punitive
measure.
So DOW smacked the pee pee's
of completely unrelated organisations, institutions
and people like thing.net (as in carrier), PS1/MOMA
(as in high brow museum), ARTFORUM (as in magazine),
as well as several hundred users who were not even
able to check their emails (not speaking about their
web sites).
Bluntly, this has been a legal
Denial of Service attack against against thing.net
with the malicious intent to disrupt their business.
|
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP
suit! (Score:2) by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Tuesday December 24, @09:22AM (#4951560)
(Last Journal: Thursday
December 19, @11:55AM) |
It's more like that an important corporate
citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny
faces.
Funny faces? They sent out a
press release with Dow's name on it, filled with
false information and quotes, solely intended to
defame Dow. It had nothing to do with raising
awareness, it had nothing to do with calling
attention. It was meant only to confuse people and
to hurt Dow.
There's a line. They crossed
it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly.
They are suffering the
consequences.
Thing.net could have avoided
this problem by taking care of their own problems.
Since they didn't do so, when Dow brought the most
recent offense to Verio's attention, Verio decided
to act according to their policies. |
[ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
RTMark are a bunch of spammers
(Score:2) by sulli (195030) on
Monday December 23, @12:34PM (#4945321)
(http://www.sulli.org/ | Last
Journal: Wednesday
December 18, @01:30PM) |
Fuck 'em. If they can't play by reasonable rules of good
behavior, I have no sympathy when they end up being smacked
down for (in this case) fraudulent misrepresentation of their
opponents. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
Time to boycott Verio? (Score:3,
Interesting) by Travoltus
(110240) on Monday December 23, @12:34PM (#4945323)
|
Are there other providers who will not take action against
a hosted site unless pushed by a court order?
I know
newsguy.com is one such provider.
I have a site with
Verio. If I know of another site with php3/4, perl and mysql,
and which will not take any action without a court order, I'm
there and Verio is out another customer. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
No problem now (Score:2) by
drew_kime
(303965) on Monday December 23, @12:48PM (#4945429)
(http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/board/show?boardid=1
| Last Journal: Friday July
12, @02:21PM) |
As of 12:30 pm EST the offending site http://dow-chemical.com/
[dow-chemical.com] now points to http://www.dow.com/homepage/index.html
[dow.com] anyway. So apparently there is nothing to worry
about. Satiric criticism is erased by domain hijacking and
no-one has to be the wiser. |
[ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
You've Got It Backwards, As Usual
(Score:2) by John Hasler
(414242) on Monday December 23, @02:35PM (#4946246)
|
> DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten
Verio,
No. Dow is using copyright law to threaten
Verio. The DMCA is forcing them to give Verio an opportunity
to remove the putatively infringing material and thereby avoid
any penalties. In the absence of the DMCA Dow could sue and
possibly collect damages even if Verio took the material down
as soon as they were notified. This would mean, of course,
that no ISP would ever let anyone put any parodies up at all.
|
[ Reply
to This ] |
| |
|