Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 10, 2007 02:34 PM
from the battening-down-the-hatches dept.
Government The Courts Entertainment Games News
An anonymous reader writes "A poster on DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer has posted the weekly ads for Circuit City, Best Buy, and Target ahead of time for the last few years. A few weeks ago he confirmed that there was an intended price break on the PS3 and stole Sony's thunder from E3. A Circuit City ad was used for confirmation. Circuit City has threatened DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer.com to give them personal information about the poster. CheapAssGamer has hired a lawyer and is going to fight. The story is similar to the Black Friday ads being posted early and FatWallet fighting back."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] FatWallet To Sue Best Buy Over DMCA Threat 263 comments
jkeyes writes "Online deal site FatWallet announced today that they will be suing Best Buy and other companies that sent them DMCA takedown notices. They are seeking a declaration from the court stating that Best Buy and other companies' demands were an abuse of the DMCA, and also violate the 1st Amendment." We covered Best Buy's original DMCA invocation a few days back.
Submission: Circuit City subpoenas CAG and DVDTalk by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quila (201335) on Friday August 10 2007, @02:42PM (#20187289)
    A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW). They are reasonably, and according to legal procedure, trying to get information from a third party to help identify the thief. It is the responsibility of that third party to provide such information.

    Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.

    • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Puls4r (724907) on Friday August 10 2007, @02:47PM (#20187367)
      Troll? Sounds like we've got some rather childish folks wielding moderator points today. The parent post made an excellent point. This is corporate strategy that should be kept secret - huge sums of money ride on generating successful buzz. If a competitor got ahold of this information they could do such things as cutting their price and announcing it the day before to make the other company appear reactionary.

      That may appear to be big things - but what if you were a stock holder who knew this was going to happen, etc etc. They ARE big things. This was a violation of company trust. The violator should be fired, if nothing else. They have every right to find out who did it.
      • Indeed. Those things are generally kept secret for a reason. Imagine how their sales dropped off once word got out that the exact same items will become cheaper three days later?
      • Yes, quite.

        When will people get it through their thick skulls that just because you don't agree with something, it's not necessarily a troll or flamebait.

        Personally, I think Troll and Flamebait are useless and just cause trouble. They provide nothing but hurt feelings and arguments, when overrated, offtopic, wrong or unfunny would suffice. /. really does need wrong and unfunny moderations though.

        • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Applekid (993327) on Friday August 10 2007, @03:39PM (#20188223)
          How about a (+1 Everyone Is Special) moderation?
          • How about, if you think troll and flamebait mods get overused, you just bump up their relative scores? Some of the best comments on /. are rated that way and are well worth reading.
          • Isn't that what the Karma Bonus is for???
        • Overrated is also a nice loophole to moderation, since it's immune to meta-moderation.

          I think it's ridiculous. Just give everyone plus and minus buttons. It's just blind pretension to assume that the restricted moderation model is actually working any better.

          • It's just blind pretension to assume that the restricted moderation model is actually working any better.
            The point of categorizing moderation is that it allows you to go into your preferences and modify scores to suit your reading. I personally add modifiers to Troll modded comments to make sure they come on in my reading because a lot of them are pretty amusing. B)

            + and - wouldn't let you have that kind of control.
        • There is a time for troll or flamebait, but the terms are as likely to be used wrong by moderators who really don't understand the meaning of the terms or who were ignorant of the facts and assumed that the poster was trolling when they actually made an interesting and on-topic comment.

          I agree that "wrong" would be quite useful.

        • Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Funny)

          by 2names (531755) on Friday August 10 2007, @04:01PM (#20188589)
          I wish there was a way to go back to your own old posts and mod yourself down.

          I have re-read posts of mine and thought, "What the hell was I thinking?"
        • Exactly. "Troll" and "Flamebait" actually mean, "Fails to grant all glory and honor to the One True Licesnse" (err, now that GPL V3 is here, which one *is* the One True License??? :)

          hawk

      • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Quila (201335) on Friday August 10 2007, @03:01PM (#20187561)
        The anti-business hippies are out there, anything that screws "tha man" is a Good Thing. I've been maxxed on karma for years, so I'm not too worried.

        I also don't think this case is equivalent to the Best Buy case as mentioned in the article. CC is trying to get to the trade secret thief. Best Buy tried to claim copyright on the information posted at Fat Wallet and sent a DMCA takedown notice to the web site itself. The problem is you can't copyright information (see the Feist decision), so the Best Buy's actions were fraudulent.
        • And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA. As you mention, prices are facts and not subject to copyright. Therefore, the wrongdoing in this case hinges on whether or not the leaker had signed some sort of NDA. However, it is not likely anyone who hasn't signed an NDA would have legitimate access to that information, and so that person should have to defend their actions in court.

          A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.
          • Stealing corporate secrets is also wrong if you stole them.

            If someone w/o a NDA breaks into a system (physically or electronically) and steals information not under copyright (say the process for manufacturing a pharmaceutical) not only is the break in wrong, but the use or distribution of the data by a third party is also wrong.
            • I knew that I phrased that wrong. What if you are an employee who did not sign an NDA, but you have access to that information? The information is not protected by copyright, it made up of simple facts. What it to keep you from sharing that with others?

          • Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA.

            Wrong? That is a subjective term. Revealing trade secrets is illegal in most of the US under most situations. Copyright and NDA's don't have anything to do with the legality.

            A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.

            Well, this is sort of true. Rights should be applied universally and equitably to all people, and maybe even to some degree to animals. We're talking, however, about the rights of a corporation. A corporation is not a person, it is a legal construct and legitimacy of a corporations' rights are very much a point of debate. The legi

            • Wow, I'm going to look up trade secret laws now. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know how they work, because if you are right about this, then I was very mistaken.

              You bring up a good point about corporations, and about ethics as well. Food for thought, thanks.
          • "And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA."

            I'd say many NDA's are wrong to begin with. If a company doesn't want people knowing, I can see NDA's for workers, but what if the company is going out of its way to give "sneak peeks" of a product not already finished like in the games industry? I mean sometimes I think businesses are just asking for the impossible, kind of like prohibition where you know you wont be abl
        • I dunno if pricing schedules are really a 'trade secret' tho. I guess they changed the definition of 'trade secret' when I wasn't looking.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by dmpyron (1069290)
            Very much a trade secret. If the documents were properly labeled, that is. Too often a company will claim "trade secret" without treating it as such. It has to be marked with something that indicates that it's private and proprietary. Like having those words stamped on it. I've been doing this game for a long time.

            Now, if I was said poster, I'd be using a Yahoo email address with all fake data and posting from free hotspots.
            • If it is a trade secret, wouldn't they really only be able to file a lawsuit (well, win a lawsuit) against someone who had never signed an agreement to keep it secret?

              I know nothing about the particulars of thise case. If it is being leaked prior to being sent to the publications, then there is a good chance it is an employee who leaked it in violation of agreements they would undoubtedly be required to sign.

              If it is being leaked by an employee of a publication, unless that employee had signed some confide

        • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Puff of Logic (895805) on Friday August 10 2007, @03:28PM (#20188043)

          Seems to me some moderators need to reread (if they read at all) the moderators guide and mod to promote instead of demote.
          I'll apologise right now for being offtopic in this thread, but I thought this merited a reply. I tend to get mod points about once a week or so, and do my best to moderate fairly and judiciously. In fact, I can only recall modding a post "flamebait" once, and that post thoroughly deserved the mod. That said, I also try to maintain a 1:1 relationship between moderating and meta-moderating sessions, as the system must be self-correcting for poor mods. For you, and those like you who believe that the moderation system is periodically abused, please take the time to meta-moderate and give some feedback. Sure, for all I know the feedback goes straight into Slashdot's /dev/null but I figure trying to provide some oversight to the mod system beats just complaining about it.

          cheers.
    • but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists". The leaks have to be coming from somebody with the info... they need to keep better track or be more "impromptu" with their deals. Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court. Then take it out on advertising companies!!! Let them deal with their employees by laying off half a press crew when they loose work. Those are LEGAL tools to use, not suing for IP logs from a news site.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Quila (201335)

        but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists"
        That's stretching the definition of "journalist" a bit thin.

        Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court.
        I'd bet CC already tried an internal investigation to try to catch the guy, and the court is a last resort. Money's on he works somewhere in relation to the companies that CC contracts to print the ads.
      • So in your opinion it's better to lay off a bunch of innocent people than to request the log files from a website? It's better for a bunch of people with family's to get laid off, possibly lose their house, car, etc than it is to request the log files from a website... glad you aren't in charge of the world.

        And just so you know, a subpoena is a LEGAL court order to turn over records, which is completely different than suing.
    • A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW).

      Misappropriation of trade secrets is not necessarily a felony.

      And last I checked, companies aren't responsible for finding and convicting criminal offenders.

      • Misappropriation of trade secrets is not necessarily a felony.
        It appears Circuit City decided not to file a complaint with the district attorney, and is instead seeking its rightful civil remedies. State laws on this differ, although most have it as a felony, and I believe federal law does too.

    • Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tsheriffk (750882) on Friday August 10 2007, @04:20PM (#20188907)
      is this really a corporate secret though? Anyone ever wonder why all name brand electronics are the same price whereever you go? All these items have MAP (minimum advertised price) restrictions that they must adhere to. All this means is that ALL retailers will be able to sell the PS3 for the new lower MAP price. Just because it leaked out of a CC ad, this price reduction is not going to be a CC only sale. I know i am assuming a bit on my last statement, but obviously unless they are doind one of those "instant rebate" type of sales, this price reduction would have been made by everyone. In addition, anyone that purchased the device ahead of the sale could get a price match, so they arent going to be making any more money on this is the info doesnt leak out. There is a lot of hoopla over nothing on this, where although CC is probably within their rights to seek out who is leaking it, are they really going to accomplish anything positive? Now all the gamers are pissed at them. I am sure they would still purchase from CC if they have the best price on stuff in the future, but if prices are the same they may be skipped over for an online or "less evil" (in their minds) retailer. And in the age of MAP pricing, how often are their really huge deals at one retailer over another?
    • The only problem is, ad inserts are normally produced months ahead of schedule. I know, I used to work in the newspaper industry. Of course, there can be rush jobs... But anyway, while people in advertising agencies may perhaps be required to sign non-disclosure documents or have it otherwise spelled out in their contract, that is NOT the case for most people running printing presses, or the guys that wrap the cling wrap around the stacks of flyers on the pallets... Or the guys who forklift the pallets onto

    • Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.

      For my money it's less about privacy than sheilding the [cash|attention] cow that brings eyeballs and notoriety to CaG.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Newspaper ads do not constitute trade secrets. Internal memos MIGHT, but a sheet of paper you print MILLIONS of for the express purpose of handing out to the public does not.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Quila (201335)
        Third parties get subpoenaed all the time to provide evidence in cases. Basically, if you have any relevant, specific information to any case, civil or criminal, it is your responsibility to give it up. If the information is sensitive you can get a protective order for it. About the only excuse I can think of right now for not giving it up is attorney-client privilege, and I don't see that applying here.

        I HATE seeing the "privacy" shield being thrown up in cases like this. It denigrates the term for everyon

  • Is it worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichPowers (998637) on Friday August 10 2007, @02:51PM (#20187405)
    Speedy1961 regularly posts BestBuy, CC, and Target prices weeks in advance on CAG's forums. As a testament to his accuracy, Gamespot and other sites use his info in stories relating to price drops, as was the case with the PS3.

    My monthy videogame expenditures have increased thanks to CAG, but I'm actually getting more games now that I know where to shop. Prior to CAG, I would only purchase videogames online. Now I venture into brick and mortar stores like CC during their sales.

    But thanks to these events, I won't be shopping at CC ever again, and I'm sure other CAGers have similar sentiments. By virtue of being a price comparison/deals website, CAG attracts more "principled" and informed consumers. Is it worth pissing off 100,000 such people, CC? Even if this is a valid case, people will be pissed if their favorite "inside" man is silenced.
    • 100,000 people? You severely overestimate that number. If you see one-fiftieth that number get pissed off enough to stop shopping at CC over this (and I mean people who actually shopped there, not people who never shopped there and now say "Nah, I'm not gonna buy from there now"), I'll be surprised as hell.
    • By virtue of being a price comparison/deals website, CAG attracts more "principled" and informed consumers.

      Others might argue that CAG attracts some, well, cheapasses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zoward (188110)
        Last Christmas, CAG's members donated over $10,000 to Child's Play. We're not misers, we just want good deals on videogames.

      • If you were forced to see the ad at the proper time, the deals would become no less money-saving. Posting the ad early does not suddenly make the deal better, nor occur sooner.

        If that is true, then the converse must be true too (after all it is a zero-sum game) - his viewing the ad early does not cause the deals to be any less expensive for Circuit City.

        Stopping these early postings do nothing but protect the company from illegal information leaks.

        If, by your own assertion, these leaks have no impact, then what interest does Circuit City have in preventing them? Even if they are "illegal" (a huge leap of faith on your part), if they have no impact, then what protection does Circuit City need?

          • 1. If I intend to buy a PS3, and don't know the price is going to drop in 3 weeks, I'll buy it. I'm not getting ripped off, I'm just paying full price for it. A price that I knew and agreed to ahead of time.

            At this point, you are in direct conflict with the GP who asserted that, "the deals would become no less money-saving."

            I'm quite willing to believe that Circuit City may derive a benefit from restricting the early distribution of this information, but they only do so at the expense of the customer. Thus the GP's original claim is false and indeed the deals do become "less money-saving."

            they are using the means set up for exactly this reason by the United States justice system.

            That's debatable, especially considering just how abjectly Apple lost on appeal with their subpoena attempts of AppleI

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by huckda (398277)

        the deals would become no less money-saving
        excepting the notion that perhaps one could not arrange time of work to hit the deal early(as in limited quantities of items)..
        then you are out the savings and maybe even the product until it drops within your buying price range once again...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by eric76 (679787)
        What is the likelihood that he has signed any kind of confidentiality agreement with Circuit City?

        If has signed no confidentiality agreement, are his actions criminal?
  • Don't these sites also have disclaimers such as /.'s

    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    to nullifying any case against said websites and forcing Circuit City to take up any lawsuits with the user posting items/comments/etc?
    • 1) If a forum member is a "journalist", than every single person here on slashdot is now a jounalist.
      2) I guess you are OK with wiretapping you then because as you say "If you don't want your secrets getting out, protect them better."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by seebs (15766)
        The claim may not be that all forum members are journalists... But that some might be.
    • It is when there is a potential for lost sales revenue due to people waiting for the sale date or when a competitor gains an advantage by k nowing when you plan on putting things on sale and has a sale a day or two earlier.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Boone^ (151057)
        I agree with you, but most companies like Best Buy have 14 day price protection. The guy posting the ads probably screwed up, but in reality only cost the amount of $$ from purchasers who wouldn't have gotten their partial refund.

      • You pay taxes to support a government that guarantees fair and equal protection under the law.

        Just what government GUARANTEES fair and equal protection under the law?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.