Dow vs. Parody

tres3 writes "I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's Internet access after seven years of service. It seems that The Yes Men have upset DOW Chemical with their parody press release concerning a poison gas leak at the Union Carbide plant (now owned by Dow) in Bhopal, India, in 1984, that killed thousands. It was posted by RTMark.com, one of hundreds of customers (mostly artists and political activists) of The Thing, but has gone missing following the DMCA claims by DOW. Some European sites are now hosting the site here and here (slightly different). What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response to all of this. While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies! :-) The story is still valid but the only thing I could find that really came from DOW was the DMCA complaint (pdf) to Verio. To add insult to injury (and death (pun intended)) Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess. Greenpeace has set up a site for you to protest this action." We did an earlier story on this.

Their Thing?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's

Did anybody else read this as "Verio cutting off their Thing"?

I wonder if the framers of the constitution...

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179)]

...had foreseen what corporations have become if they wouldn't have put a few special clauses in especially for them.

Look up the history of. . . `

[kfg (145172)]

the Virgina Colony. The Hudson Bay Trading Company. The East Indian Trading Company. Etc.

The framers of the Constitution knew damn well what corporations "would become." They had *already* become them.

Provisions were made in the Constitution and legislative law to deal with this issue. Great essays were written on the subject by learned minds such as Thomas Jefferson. 50 years later such matters were still uppermost in the minds of America's great social philosopher's, such as Thoreau.

Our forefather's weren't idiots, weren't ignorant and weren't "cavemen." Their world was, in many respects, "more like our own than our own."

Stock markets, insurance companies, leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers, all done on a global scale, were already a century or more of old news before the first shot of the revolution was fired on the green at Lexington.

For God's sake man, Jefferson and Adams were *lawyers* and had actually participated in such actions. They learned their loathing of them first hand.

So what went wrong?

Well, let me put it to you this way. Do *you* still do business with these large corporations, giving them the money and power to buy law? Traded a little freedom for luxury items and security maybe?

I forget who it was, but an ancient historian, commenting on the aculturation of the Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along these lines:

"And so, the gullible natives, eventually came to call their slavery "culture.""

Ring any bells close to home?

That's the problem with republicanism, don't you see. The problems start at the top, more often than not, but *responsibiltiy* always, always, alway, falls to the bottom.

People don't want responsibility. They want a Big Mac while bopping to the latest Brittney Spears "tune."

KFG

Re:Look up the history of. . . `

[dazed-n-confused (140724)]

I forget who it was, but an ancient historian, commenting on the aculturation of the Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along these lines: "And so, the gullible natives, eventually came to call their slavery "culture.""

Tacitus, Agricola [aol.com] (hagiography of his father-in-law, a Roman governor of Britain), s.21.

"To accustom to rest and repose through the charms of luxury a population scattered and barbarous and therefore inclined to war, Agricola gave private encouragement and public aid to the building of temples, courts of justice and dwelling-houses, praising the energetic, and reproving the indolent. Thus an honourable rivalry took the place of compulsion. He likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its eloquence. Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the "toga" became fashionable. Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilisation, when it was but a part of their servitude."

good points, but not entirely true

[Stu Charlton (1311)]

" leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers , all done on a global scale, were already a century or more of old news before the first shot of the revolution was fired on the green at Lexington."

This isn't entirely true. Large-scale corporations (the size of Hudson Bay or East Indian, which were exceptions) didn't really emerge until the late 1800's.

Another note is the fundamental disconnect in power between management and shareholder. Certainly businesses started with owners that "hired hands" to run the place. But eventually (WW2 and beyond) management rose as a distinct discipline and practice. Management held a tremendous amount of what could be almost called "illegitimate" power.. that is, until the backlash of hostile takeovers of the 1970's and 80's. Hostile takeovers before this time were quite rare... and it's really what started the whole "maximize shareholder value" fad we hear about today -- if you don't keep your stock price up, you'll get raided.

I was going to, but. . .

[kfg (145172)]

I was afraid the symbol might be trademarked and I'd get sued for using it in an unapproved fashion.

KFG

Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...

[kurt_cagle (410798)]

In the mid-1880s, at the (well-renumerated) insistence of the Railroad
companies, corporations were given all of the rights that hitherto had been assigned only to individuals via the Bill of Rights. Until that time, the rights and abilities of
corporations were highly restricted, in great part because Jefferson, Madison and Franklin
were all quite aware of what would happen if corporations did gain these rights. In many ways the original Revolutionary war was a corporate war - much of the exploration of the
American colonies was carried out by corporations that were looking for a cheaper source of raw materials and a captive market for their goods. When the American revolutionaries began to fight back, it was these same corporations that paid for the British troops, ships, and armaments, because they saw the actions as being harmful to their corporate interests.

Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179)]

Im talking about the trend these days to value corporate freedom above individual freedom. I mean, when did a *corporation* get the right to free speech? The people that make up and run that corporation certainly have that right, but this trend of treating corporate entities as individuals is getting out of hand.

Forcing a number of (presumably) individuals with something to say off the web with the stroke of a pen doesn't seem totalitarian to you? Due process isn't even an option due to the cost.

Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...

[www.sorehands.com (142825)]

Nope, for two reasons. First, they didn't have the right to say what they said in the first place; false representation and defamation are illegal...(Parody is, of course, but this work was not a parody. It was fraud.)

To be defamation, or more precisely, libel Dow would have to show false facts. What are the false facts that have been published?

Second it is not false representation. Parody by nature requires one to create an image of what you are making parody of. To be fraud, they must be attempting to get something of value.

Second, this activity wasn't a government action at all; the government was never involved. Rather, Dow complained to Verio and asked that they enforce their AUP, and Verio complied. The rules were laid down right from the beginning; Thing.net chose to ignore them, so they lost their service.

Asking a court to restrict someone's right or penalize someone for their speech is an infringment of the first amendment. Using the threat os this should also be considered the same.

Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...

[uncoveror (570620)]

Whether this was parody or fraud should have been a matter for the courts to decide. Thanks to the provisions of the DMCA, they didn't have to get involved for censorship to occur. This is what is meant by the term, "Chilling Effect." As for defamation, printing negative information is not libel if it is true, no matter how negative. A biting satire of the company that continues to ignore their responsibility for Bhopal, and is even suing Bhopal survivors, that appears at first glance to be Dow's real website is a valid exercise in free speech in my opinion. I think that the Supreme Court would eventually agree if they heard this case, as it did in the Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell case. Dow deserves to have the screws put to them. I support the Yes Men, and Greenpeace for doing just that. Dow could have avoided a lot of negative publicity by ignoring the yes men. Now, more people than ever before are learning that Dow is Union Carbide, and people are still dying every day because of their irresponsibility.

OMFG

[by Anonymous Coward]

That was the most incomprehensible story summary I've ever read.

There was the group, and we'll give them some forgettable name, and they did some stuff, and DMCA, and ow what hit me, the end.

Re:OMFG

[Shalome (566988)]

Heh.. you forgot the "Oh, but wait, as I'm writing this I realized that the first half of my submission was utterly ridiculous and actually wrong, but I'm continuing anyway..." and the "Oh wait, we already said this" from the Slashdot editors. ;)

Re:OMFG

[Negadecimal (78403)]

Coffee helps a little. But not enough.

These types of stories need MORE publicity

[ThresholdRPG (310239)]

This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT one of the most important benefits of the internet. The ability to ridicule a company or government for things it has done to cause real harm to others is quite possibly one of the most important types of freedom of expression.

It is absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a favorable light.

There is, however, a place where the line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home addresses, and other personal information against their will, then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting actual people and their families at risk. When you create a parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to utilize the personal information in order to cause real physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's family.

Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to "thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks, so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.

The reason I even bring up this issue is because of this part of the article:

> "We even put down James Parker's real home
> address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!"
> the Yes Men said in a statement.

Actually no, that is not funny. The only funny part about that was that James Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in question. ;p

> "But on Dec. 4, James Parker himself, with the
> help of a team of Dow lawyers, sent a Xerox of
> his driver's license and a letter by FedEx to
> Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This domain
> belongs to me. See, that's my home address,
> too. Give it to me!"
>
> According to rules established by the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers --
> an organization responsible for, among other
> chores, Internet address disputes -- Parker was
> correct and Gandi.net had no legal choice but
> to hand over Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.

That part I find absolutely hilarious =).

So while it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such sites be prevented from distributing personal information about individuals.

The dangers inherent in the former put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the latter put lives at risk.

Re:These types of stories need MORE publicity

[Rogerborg (306625)]

Isn't it James Parker's actions that put him and his family (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) at risk?

What you are suggesting is - effectively - that those with power and influence must be protected from the consequences of their own actions. Does anything strike you as wrong with that?

Do not pass go, do not collect $200

[LostCluster (625375)]

I think for once, the parody artists have gone too far and I have to line up on the side of the big business.

Even the /. poster admits that he got fooled into thinking the "response" from Dow was really from The Yes Men. That's over the line. It's one thing to be critical of Dow's actions, but it's another thing all together to confuse people into thinking you are Dow while making statements that Dow doesn't want make.

Yeah, Dow was a little underhanded to make the phone call after business hours, but The Thing could have blocked that trick simply by having a 24/7 answering service and an admin with a beeper. It's hard for them to try to claim that they aren't responsible for striking a website when they are told that what the site owners are doing is against the law, and I don't see why doing exactly what they were doing should be legal.

Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200

[Fastolfe (1470)]

I agree.. the parody site and press release were a little too convincing. They either needed to go a little further with the site and the release so that it was obvious, or add a disclaimer.

While some (most?) of us could probably tell that it was a parody anyway (or at least be suspicious that it was), we're in the minority here. It needs to be obvious to the layperson.

Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200

[Tom (822)]

The entire point of the Yes Man's actions has always been that it is confused with the real thing. They've done a couple things that make you really think about it, and they could only do it the way they did.

If corporations have free speech, why can't the Yes Men? Honestly, what's the worse crime - poisoning a couple thousand people, or impersonating someone who isn't even a person?

Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200

[Twirlip of the Mists (615030)]

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.

Free speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want and damned be the consequences. It doesn't work that way.

Honestly, what's the worse crime - poisoning a couple thousand people, or impersonating someone who isn't even a person?

Ah, the classic "But they started it!" defense. That always works so well in the courts.

Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200

[MrHanky (141717)]

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.

Corporate Freedom of Speech ....

[dougmc (70836)]

Corporate Freedom of Speech [google.com] only shows up 42 times in google (web) and only 8 [google.com] times in google groups.

Yet according to Dow's press release, Corporate Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms [dowethics.com].

Obviously it's one of those freedoms that nobody except Dow talks about. (In fact, many of the google links are about Dow.)

Of course, the troubling part is that obviously it's more important than `generic' Freedom of Speech. At least according to Dow.

Their press release alone reads like a parody. I really hope it is. And if it's not, I hope they get spanked hard for it.

Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech ....

[dougmc (70836)]

Obviously you did, too.

Obviously I did.

Had I just found it by itself, I'd have attributed it to parody (I did mention that it reads like a parody, after all), but the /. story *said* it was from Dow --

What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response to all of this

and I took that at it's word. Perhaps I should have made a New Years Resolution to not take people I don't know at their word, especially when it just looks wrong.

Which makes it a very good parody indeed -- not just from The Yes Men, but also from the user `michael' on Slashdot. He told us that this was from Dow, and since we're all ready (me too) to believe that the mighty Corporation is out to get us, I believed him, even though it was somewhat absurd.

Let's hope that Dow doesn't get *too* sue-happy over this -- now they could go after michael too.

I don't see where the DMCA comes into play here, but there's still plenty of other things that Dow could use to make The Yes Men and michael's life unpleasant.

Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech ....

[Doppleganger (66109)]

What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response to all of this. While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies!

Perhaps you should have made a New Year's Resolution to raise your reading comprehension.

Especially since you somehow think michael told you anything was from Dow, when the Slashdot article clearly states that tres3 was the writer... the only portion not quoted from tres3 is the last seven words: "We did an earlier story on this."

But, did you know the net is only for commerce?

[tizzyD (577098)]

(If anyone says "who cares," when they dump the chemicals in your neighborhood and your kid is born with flippers, realize that the great wheel has come full cirle. You get back what you deserve!)

What gets me here is that, get this, from Dow's own web site:

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.

Yep, that's right, sports fans. If you serve no commercial purpose, you have no right to exist. Such corporate arrogance is horrid. In true W-esque fashion, unless you consume, you're worthless. What do these guys want? Web sites for companies only? What a yawn that would be. Remember the article a while back, noting that the web has been growing in capabilities and innovation not by big corporate bozo's but by, yep, web porn. We may not like it, but those sleazy guys are the ones Dow can sell fiber in the first place!

Lastly, I am so pleased to have Dow no inform me as to the unproductive analysis and critique that Thing.net was providing. Before, I considered it merely satire or commentary. Now I see what it truly was . . . a communist plot to keep Dow from cleaning our water and preserving our precious bodily fluids. Thanks Dow!

Re:But, did you know the net is only for commerce?

[outsider007 (115534)]

basically this whole story is a troll and people will be falling for it for the next 24 hours or so.

good times.

Re:But, did you know the net is only for commerce?

[PNut_Head (631216)]

What gets me here is that, get this, from Dow's own web site:

Actually, that is not from 'Dow's own web site'. It's from a site that is set up to look almost exactly like one sponsored, maintained or supported by DOW. It's not. It's an example of parody gone too far. There doesn't even seem to be a disclaimer about the entire site being parody.

The original post does however mention that the submitter was fooled as you were. It seems you did a good job and RTFA, but should have spent a little more time to RTFP more carefully.

Re:But, did you know the net is only for commerce?

[mat catastrophe (105256)]

Um, no. The above quotations are from DOW Ethics.com [dowethics.com], which is obviously one of the parody sites.

I say obviously, because I do not for one hot second think that anyone here can or should defend DOW Chemical in this matter. Yes, The Onion is an obvious parody, but not because of the disclaimers or the site design, but because of the content. And don't pull out your tired and elitist "Joe Average" arguments, because Joe Average is probably not surfing the DOW chemical websites anyway. Those sites are for investors and business types and if they aren't smart enough to tell when they are being had, well, fuck 'em.

These are very strange times we live in today, and strange times call for strange measures. Yes, the parody people took some extreme steps (ripping off corporate design, registering similar domain names) but that's what it might take to get attention. And it certainly did get some attention, now didn't it? How many of you would even be thinking about the policies and procedures of DOW chemicals today if it weren't for this story? Probably three of you. Certainly not me, I'm nursing a headache from lack of sleep.

This is interesting...

[craenor (623901)]

I happen to think that for the most part you have the right to put anything you want on your website. If you want to run a parody of Dow, the Pope or John Lennon, go for it.

However, with that being said. Your ISP doesn't necessarily have to put up with that. They also have a right to decide what content they will host on their servers. If they take offense at your postings or bow to pressure from a corporation or the government, that's well within their right.

They run a business. Just because you want to take a risk with something you choose to write. Doesn't meant they have to take the risk with you.

The Yes Men could be at fault

[fermion (181285)]

OK people, let take a chill pill and look at the situation. In my opinion a parody should be an original creation, be distinct from the object of satire, and not be deceptive. The Onion [theonion.com] is an excellent example of effective and creative satire.

In the case of the "Yes Men" the attempt seems to be using parody and satire to effect social activism. This, in itself, is not a bad or uncommon thing. However, if one is going to do this, one has to make sure the creation is actually satire.

The main tool that they use on the web appears to be 'Reamweaver', a tool to copy a website and modify in small ways. From the Reamweaver website we have
Reamweaver has everything you need to instantly "funhouse-mirror" anyone's website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you change any words, images, etc. that you choose.
and
Use Reamweaver for fun, or, if you like, for lots of fun... by obtaining speaking opportunities on behalf of your adopted organization. Here's how to that:
1. (Optional) Register a domain not too different from your target's domain - e.g. we-forum.org, world-economic-forum.com, wtoo.org, rncommittee.org .
2. Put Reamweaver on your domain.
3. Tell search engines about your domain.
4. When invitations arrive, accept them!
This does not seem to a tool conducive to satire. This appears to be a tool that is to be used to misrepresent, decieve, and ultimately allow an individual to go into the community as the perceived representative of the company under attack.

Social activism is good. Trying to create a better world is good. However, when you invite a person from Dow Chemical to your office, one would expect that the person is actually from dow chemical. Furthermore, I am not sure I would equate the Reamweaver technique to a person who registers a slightly misspelled domain name and then puts up tons of pop ups and installs viruses when some unsuspecting visitors accidently hits the site.

I understand that the intention of the Yes Men are probably just. I understand that they are probably good people,. However, copying someone else's website and representing it as your own is not good. It is one thing to rip other artists CDs for personal use. It is another thing to rip those CDs and then sell the copies. It is yet another thing to rip those CDs change a few seconds, and then represent the tracks as your own. What they are doing might be peaceful disobendience. It does not seem to be satire

Re:The Yes Men could be at fault

[Henry V .009 (518000)]

Oh, God. Copying a website and changing it in small ways for humorous result. That wouldn't be something called parody would it? I've heard of parody. It sounds awful. I hope it's banned. I'm going to write my Congressman asking for a new division of the police force especially designed to break into people's houses looking for this thing called parody. I mean, a company could actually lose PROFIT over a thing like this!

Didja all catch...

[FFFish (7567)]

...that bit about DOW suing the families that were destroyed/hurt by their Bhopal disaster?

A bunch of women marched on DOW HQ in India, delivering some of the contanimated soil and water from Bhopal. The protest lasted two peaceful hours. A single DOW employee greeted them.

DOW is now suing them for the equivalent of US$10K -- a helluva lot of money, particularly in India -- for "lost wages" because of the "work disruption."

Disgusting. First they slaughter hundreds and thousands of employees and families through cost-cutting, undertraining, and poor plant maintenance; then they refuse to clean up the mess; then they sue the very people who were hurt by the accident.

Sometimes it would be e'er so nice to be able to punish CEOs as if they'd committed the crimes themselves.

Re:Didja all catch...

[Lysol (11150)]

Yah, and for compensation for the deaths, UC only paid out around $300-$400 each. Beyond sad.

Of course, you have to wonder what part the Indian govt. had to do with all this. I mean, they closed the case in '91 or whenever it was and stated that they thought it was fair.

Dow's corporate free speech thing is a load of garbage. However, one has to wonder, even tho they aren't the best, they bought someone else that did something and i'm not sure how i feel about them having to do deal with it. On the other hand, it only seems natural and a way to make them look like they really do care if they went in and pre-emptively made things better..

But of course, they is rarely the case for any global entity.

Re:Didja all catch...

[MrResistor (120588)]

When Dow bought UC, they bought their messes too, just like if you marry someone with bad credit.

Interesting point about the Indian government, though.

Re:Didja all catch...

[kaphka (50736)]

...that bit about DOW suing the families that were destroyed/hurt by their Bhopal disaster?

How do we know that that story isn't another "parody"? I can find no reference [google.com] to it outside of Greenpeace [greenpeace.org] (which is not high on my list of reliable news sources,) and it seems even more absurd than The Yes Men's original forged press release.

Half of the "informative" posts on this article cite anti-Dow hoaxes as "facts," and use them to justify their opposition to Dow's attempts to suppress hoaxes. If that doesn't prove libel, I don't know what could.

(Having said that, I can't see what any of this has to do with the DMCA. But hey, libel cases are expensive. Why bother suing, when you can just say the magic words and make any website dissappear?)

"peaceful protest"

[eyeball (17206)]

... of 200 women survivors from Bhopal delivered toxic waste from the abandoned Carbide factory back to Dow's Indian headquarters in Bombay...

From reading between the lines of the article, it appears that they are suing the protesters, and not all the survivors, for what sounds like an irresponsible protest rather than a peaceful one. If someone showed up at my company's door with deadly chemicals, we'd have to shut the place down for security reasons, at a cost to the business.

Dow may be wrong or negligent in compensating the survivors, but protesters causing a business to loose money to gain their attention or try and get them to change their action is about as effective as spanking a child when they don't eat their peas. They're just going to grow up hating those that spank them.

Re:"peaceful protest"

[phorm (591458)]

If someone showed up at my company's door with deadly chemicals, we'd have to shut the place down for security reasons, at a cost to the business.

However, Dow is dumping those same chemicals on somebody else's doorstep. They're just being nice enough to return them for analysis...

I am truly disgusted

[theolein (316044)]

Dow chemical suing people who have a yearly income of $1000 for $10000 after the tragedy in Bhopal (which still hasn't been cleaned up) is so low and disgusting that one wonders what kind of snarling inhuman lunatics run that company.

It is this kind of thing that breeds terrorists and whips up frenzy amongst people who have no recourse to medical care, much less fat corporate lawyers.

I can't carry on because I am absolutely speechless with disgust at those fucking bastards.

Play a little devils advocate.

[bm_luethke (253362)]

First off there seems to have been a genreal uproar over dows "response" link, notice even the author raelised it was a parody and not in any way from dow, so you can't really fault dow for that peice (though the author says " While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies! :-) The story is still valid " - umm, dow didn't write it but lets hate them for it anyway? plenty of reason to hate dow but using a parody to hate them really weakens your position.)

I don't really know why the copyright violations in this are DMCA, it seems that normal copyright and trademarks cover thier violations, and yes they are violations. They were before DMCA and still will be if the DMCA is repealed. Though this should not have forced the whole site down, just the removeal of the copyrighted/trademarked images (hey, make some parody version of them - that's legal, but you can't just copy thier images and pretend to be them). Plus they quote cybersquatting statutes, they don't really seem to be cybersquatting (though using dow-chemical is iffy on copyright, had they used something like dow-chemical-sucks they would have easily been in the parody/protest stuff, but they seemed to have intentionally tried to fool someone into thinking they were dow to get them there).

And lastly "Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess." No, even according to the greenpeace article the survivors carried contamited material to thier site - that's not legal. While I greatly sympathise with them (and definatly think they got screwed royally) that doesn't give you the right to do that. As neither does being rich give someone the right to pollute with impunity. Much like in the US many protestors seem to think that the first amendment gives them the right to trasspass and destroy property, it doesn't - gather on public land all you want, don't block traffic and not only are you legal but you garner much more sympathy.

In sum, they have a very legitimate complaint, dow chemical did some VERY bad stuff and deserve to be raped in court, and never have and probably never will. But that doesn't give you the right (in the US, or apparently india either) to do whatever you feel (eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth isn't in the constitution). Plus my final complaint is that we have only heard one side, greenpeace isn't really know for being exactly unbiased and giving complete stories. There are much more effective ways to try and get something, they failed, now all they do is make people much less sympathetic overall to their cause (maybe it makes them feel better though).

How the DMCA got involved

[LostCluster (625375)]

This kind of misrepresentation and use of Dow's trademarks in a way that makes people thing The Yes Men's site belonged to Dow has always been illegal under assorted trademark and copyright laws, and has nothing to do with the DMCA.

Where the DMCA kicks in is the takedown provisions. Dow called Verio and said "Get this off the Web now!" and Verio was required to honor that request. Verio tried calling The Thing, but they weren't available because they had shut down for the day and didn't leave anyway to contact anyone in control. Verio had no way to delete the site other than to pull their whole line, so they did.

Eventually The Thing pulled the illegal site, and Verio restored access. However, because The Thing caused this whole mess by not having somebody on call who could respond to the takedown demand, they downtime was theirs even though Verio is taking the blame. Verio has now decided they don't want to do business with The Thing anymore, because they don't like being blamed for their customer's inactions.

Dow's Responses

[backtick (2376)]

Far be it from me to think walking away from an ecological disaster is a good thing, but from what I can see, according to both the US and Indian courts, Dow has done everything they said they'd do relating to this, and everything the lawsuits against them said they had to do.

The paid ~$500 million to the Indian Government for ongoing cleanup, to create a medical program for anyone who lives in the affected area, and to cover things like ongoing monitoring of the chemical creep. They also paid out an additional ~$20 million to build and maintain a new hospital specifically in the area to handle any related medical claims. They also added an additional ~$55 million dollars to the hospital support funds when they bought out UCI.

They actually have paid out far more than the lawsuits against them in US courts originally stated (where the Indian government received a ruling for ~$350 million). I think all told that Dow has produced over $600 million for cleanup and ongoing support and healthcare.

All in all, most of the cleanup, treatment and monitoring of chemical contamination in the area is supposed to be handled by the Indian Government, not by Dow directly. If those hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent somewhere else, are people asking the government (or whoever they've appointed to handle the situation) where it's going?

This is especially apt as many of the court cases have focused on Dow's liability, and the majority still uphold the 'reasonable doubt' that Dow was criminally liable (which is why they still haven't tried very hard to get Warren Anderson shipped their for homicide charges), and even some went so far as to support the findings of 3rd party teams that the chemical release was a result of a deliberate act by a disgruntled worker.

Now, it's been 18 years, and I don't personally have any knowledge of anything to do with Bhopal beyond what I can read. However, based on that information, I think a lot of this is the result of PR by Greenpeace and others who conveniently ignore the things that Dow *has* done.

As an aside, I don't work for Dow, have any relatives who work for Dow, or own stock in Dow (unless one of those pathetic 401k funds that are basically WORTHLESS right now has shares, in which case I don't give a damn). I just see a lot of knee-jerk reactions and wonder if a lot of people who 'know about bhopal' have ever done more than read 1 website or less? Could Dow be a tool of Satan designed to make life on Earth a living hell, run completely by unfeeling demons who want to kill and maim innocent people? Sure. Is it probably that black-and-white? I really doubt it. It's only fair to research both sides.

Re:Dow's Responses

[Psion (2244)]

[applauds]
Excellent post! I have little doubt that Greenpeace is once again playing fast and loose with the facts to further their political agenda against multinational corporations. It's just a shame that so many people buy into the notion that Greenpeace is an unbiased guardian when even one of the founders of the organization now says of it, "They're using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas like class warfare and anti-corporatism that, in fact, have almost nothing to do with ecology."

And now the info in your post, if true, shows they're up to the same old tricks with Dow.

Yep, we do have to keep an eye on corporations and make a point to highlight grievous activity...that's what gave The Yes Men "parody" such legs. But we also need to keep an eye on activist groups like Greenpeace and be every bit as suspicious of their propaganda.

Whither Globalization?

[teetam (584150)]

I grew up in India and whenever I think back to the Bhopal tragedy, I still feel nauseated. American politicians today who scream about Iraq gassing its own people should take a look at this.

A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be outraged.

No. Suddenly, Dow chemicals was no longer a global company - it was an American company, run by American citizens who are bound only by American laws! The Indians had to struggle very hard to bring these people to court - it is still not over, 18 years after the 'accident'.

Globalization is a wonderful thing, but only if all such aspects are dealt with. People tend to forget that free markets in countries like the USA work well only when the companies are governed by law and regulated by watchdog organizations. While the West aggressively pushes for global free markets, they don't seem to realize that there is no global law and no global watchdog or regulatory body.

What Dow chemicals did is an extremity, but there are many other simpler violations. Think about it - Coke sells cans in USA, among hundreds of other countries. That is great. But, how many of these countries have proper recycling facilities? Many third world countries are being pressurized by the world bank to open up to MNCs and are they are all becoming dumping grounds for these multi national companies. Heck, most of these countries don't even have proper drinking water for its population, but Coke and Pepsi are available everywhere!

Re:Whither Globalization?

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

American politicians today who scream about Iraq gassing its own people should take a look at this.

A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be outraged.

Your comparison between Carbide and Hussein is morally bankrupt.

There is a very large difference between the negligence (if there was actual negligence) of Carbide and murderous intent of Saddam Hussein to commit genocide. Carbide certainly did NOT go out and say 'let's kill off a bunch of folks using MIC to cut down on these local protests'.

There is also the fact that the UCarbide plant in West Va, had problems with MIC accidents as well. The concept that Carbide was doing anything in India because it felt that Indians were less worthy than Americans is speculative, to say the least.

UC does bear a great deal of responsibility for what happened in India. But it was not genocide, murder, chemical warefare or any other such act. It was an unintended industrial accident of unprecidented impact.

Maybe UC was negligent in it's operations of the Bhopal plant - but the fact is that best practice standards then and now are two very different things. And the fact is that ultimately that local management of a chemical plant is in the best position to address safety issues. That local management must share a great deal of the responsibility for what happened, including ultimately the leaky valve that was the immediate cause of the accident. That local management was Indian.

Dow complaint seems valid

[geekee (591277)]

If anyone bothers to read the Dow complaint pdf, they'll note that Dow is suing for trademark infringement, and for sqatting on dow-chemical.com. I don't know what the law says about using a companies trademarks in a parody, but I can see where they'd have a case. Their website name claim is clearly valid as well. If you're going to make a parody site, you should do so within the law. I can see why their ISP dropped them.

This organization is getting sued, too

[release7 (545012)]

It ain't easy doing battle with the big boys.

This owners of this web site, www.slaverready.com [slaverready.com] is also getting sued. Not for the content of the site but because the logo on the site supposedly infringes on Labor Ready's logo. What a bunch of BS.

You may not be able to fight city hall but you can't fight corporations without getting crushed.

Boycott Dow??

[Black Copter Control (464012)]

Dow is a Corporation. As such, they don't really respond to moral issues -- only financial issues that fall out of moral upsets. Saying "oh, Dow are nasty people" won't do much to get their attention. Cutting Dow purchases by 10%, on the other hand, would.

If you want to get Dow's attention, tell people to stop buying their produ cts, and tell them why. At the end of Dow's 2001 financial report [dow.com], they have a partial list of Dow and associated company trademarks.

I peeled out that data, paired it with the company name, and then sorted the result.. If you want to boycott Dow products, these names would probably be a good start.

I'll also place a copy of this list on my website ( http://www.bcgreen.com/dow/trademarks.html [bcgreen.com]) where I can update it as necessary. (147 references so far).
damn lameness filters force reformatting.

Affinity :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Amerchol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Amplify :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Aspun :: The Dow Chemical Company
Attane :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Betabrace :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc.
Betadamp :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betafoam :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc.
Betaguard :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betamate :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc.
Betaseal :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Blox :: The Dow Chemical Company
Calibre :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Carbowax :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Cellosize :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Confirm :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Covelle :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Cyracure :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
D.E.H. :: The Dow Chemical Company | | D.E.N. :: The Dow Chemical Company
D.E.R. :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Daxad :: Hampshire Chemical Corp.
Derakane :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Derakane Momentum :: The Dow Chemical Company
Dithane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Dow :: The Dow Chemical Company
Dowex :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowfax :: The Dow Chemical Company
Dowflake :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowlex :: The Dow Chemical Company
Dowper :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowtherm :: The Dow Chemical Company
Drytech :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dursban :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Elite :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Emerge :: The Dow Chemical Company
Envision :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Ethafoam :: The Dow Chemical Company
Ethocel :: The Dow Chemical Company | | FilmTec :: FilmTec Corporation
FirstRate :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Flexomer :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Fortress :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Fulcrum :: The Dow Chemical Company
Garlon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Gas/Spec :: INEOS plc
Glyphomax :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Goal :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Grandstand :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Great Stuff :: Flexible Products Company
Hamposyl :: Hampshire Chemical Corp. | | Immotus :: The Dow Chemical Company
Insite :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Inspire :: The Dow Chemical Company
Insta-stik :: Flexible Products Company | | Instill :: The Dow Chemical Company
Intacta :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Integral :: The Dow Chemical Company
Intrepid :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Isonate :: The Dow Chemical Company
Isoplast :: The Dow Chemical Company | | LP Oxo :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Lamdex :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Lifespan :: The Dow Chemical Company
Liquidow :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Lontrel :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Lorsban :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Magnum :: The Dow Chemical Company
Maxicheck :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Maxistab :: The Dow Chemical Company
Meteor :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Methocel :: The Dow Chemical Company
Mimic :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Mustang :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Mycogen :: Mycogen Corporation | | Neocar :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Opticite :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Optim :: The Dow Chemical Company
PAX System :: Michelin North America, Inc. | | Papi :: The Dow Chemical Company
Peladow :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Pellethane :: The Dow Chemical Company
PhytoGen :: PhytoGen Seed Company | | Polyox :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Polyphobe :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Prevail :: The Dow Chemical Company
Primacor :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Procite :: The Dow Chemical Company
Pulse :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Quash :: The Dow Chemical Company
Questra :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Redi-Link :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Responsible Care :: American Chemistry Council | | Retain :: The Dow Chemical Company
Safe- Tainer :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Saran :: The Dow Chemical Company
Saranex :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Sentricon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Shac :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Si-Link :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
SiLK :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Spectrim :: The Dow Chemical Company
Spider :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Starane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Stinger :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Strandfoam :: The Dow Chemical Company
Strongarm :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Styrofoam :: The Dow Chemical Company
Styron :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Styron A-Tech :: The Dow Chemical Company
Syltherm :: Dow Corning Corporation | | Synergy :: The Dow Chemical Company
Syntegra :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Tanklite :: The Dow Chemical Company
Telone :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Tergitol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
The Enhancer :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Thermax :: The Dow Chemical Company
Tone :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Tordon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Tracer Naturalyte :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Treflan :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Trenchcoat :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Triton :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Trycite :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Trymer :: The Dow Chemical Company
Tuflin :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Tyril :: The Dow Chemical Company
UCAR :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | UCAT :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
UCON :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Ucartherm :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Unigard :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Unipol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Unipurge :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Unival :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
Versene :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Vikane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Voracor :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voralast :: The Dow Chemical Company
Voralux :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voranate :: The Dow Chemical Company
Voranol :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voranol Voractiv :: The Dow Chemical Company
Vydyne :: Solutia Inc. | | Woodstalk :: Dow BioProducts Ltd.
Zetabon :: The Dow Chemical Company

Re:how is this different from the earlier story?

[spazoid12 (525450)]

I've noticed that lately all you need to do is read back-issues of Wired magazine, and in particular, PopSci magazine.

And then hope that either Timothy or ChrisD is on duty.

But, of course, I'm wrong and this is just trollish flamebait. And so in an effort not to get modded down let me add: I found this article to be insightful and informative. I particularly found the Greenpeace link inspiring and have made a mental note to someday, possibly, visit that link...if nothing else, just to see what a bunch of Zodiac owners are up to now.

Re:how is this different from the earlier story?

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

There's really nothing new here, other than to say 'wired picked up a story that we did two weeks ago.'

The news that Dow is suing the Bopahl survivors to try to silence their protests over Dows failure to clean up is news to me.

The Union Carbide disaster at Bopahl was due to sheer negligence and greed. Dow still refuses to clean up the site of the disaster and has yet to pay compensation to most of the victims.

Perhaps if students stopped and considered the wisdom of joining a company that could kill 800 people with its negligence and not care a damn Dow might have a lot more difficulty recruiting on campus.

If you are choosing an employer in the chemical business their safety record should be your first concern. If you work for a company like Dow that is saying that they can kill 800 people, create pollution that will kill even more and they just don't care you are quite litteraly putting your own life on the line for their corporate profits.

The same goes for communities that have Dow installations near them, or planned to be built near them. Make sure that your representatives are aware that Dow cannoit be trusted.

Re:Is this guy Related to Hitler?

[HiThere (15173)]

That was the spoof site. They didn't actually say that, they merely lived it.

Re:USA - the world's biggest polluter. So what's n

[NexusTw1n (580394)]

Yes, the US is the largest consumer of economic resources, and the largest polluter in the world. Be even if the US were to freeze it's CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, it would little to impact world CO2 levels or growth of those levels. That growth is coming from places outside the US

Nonsense.

According to the UN :

"China has, despite economic growth estimated at 36 per cent, managed to reduce it carbon dioxide emissions by 17 per cent since 1996/97. "

"A study by scientists at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California concludes that China's C02 emissions are already 400 to 900 million tonnes

below what was expected in 2000 which is approximately equivalent to all C02 emissions from Canada, at the low end of the range, or Germany, at the high end of the estimate. "

"In the United States, which at 23 per cent has the highest share of global C02 emissions, levels of the greenhouse gas have grown from 4.8 billion tonnes in 1990 to over 5.4 tonnes in 1998

China is doing all it can to reduce its emissions, the US is still increasing its pollution."

Like much of the world, China is doing something about C02, which is a good job, because the US's refusal to work with the Kyoto Protocol is embarrassing.

Source [solutions-site.org]