Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News Your Rights Online

Dow vs. Parody 363

Posted by michael
from the no-sense-of-humor dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dow vs. Parody

Comments Filter:
  • 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"?
  • by UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @01:35PM (#4994021)
    ...had foreseen what corporations have become if they wouldn't have put a few special clauses in especially for them.
    • by kfg (145172) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @03:08PM (#4994374)
      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
      • by dazed-n-confused (140724) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @04:03PM (#4994574)
        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."
      • They want a Big Mac while bopping to the latest Brittney Spears "tune."

        Make sure you put a TM after that word "tune", lest you get in trouble by the RIAA.

      • " 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.
    • 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.
  • OMFG (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @01:41PM (#4994047)
    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.
  • by ThresholdRPG (310239) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @01:46PM (#4994067) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @04:04PM (#4994585) Homepage

      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?

    • 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

      That ability is not threatened at all by this. What is threatened is the ability to try to deceive people so as to mislead them about a company or government.

      These sites were not parody sites. They were trying to confuse people into thinking they were Dow's site, and are using the claim of parody to try to hide their attempted identity theft.

  • by LostCluster (625375) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @01:48PM (#4994081)
    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.
    • 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.
    • by Tom (822) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:00PM (#4994122) Homepage Journal
      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?

      • 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.
        • Agreed, they even put the kind of totally outrageous statements that only a corporation run by people with no sense of morality could make. How could anyone be expected to distinguish this from the real Dow Chemical?
        • Have you ever seen "just kidding" notices on the Onion? Goddamn, but a lot of people get fooled by the Onion. I've seen articles about how the mainstream press picks up on it every now and then. So, since the Onion goes out of its way to make its articles look real (hint: that's why they're funny), the Onion should be sued?

          If you want the courts to step in here based on the "some people will be fooled" line, that is a very slippery slope.
        • 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.
        • Ah, the classic "But they started it!" defense. That always works so well in the courts.

          Nope, you read that wrong. I don't care who did it first, what I care about is what is being done.

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

          It doesn't? If it carries consequences, then it ain't free speech. If that were the definition of free speech, then hey, you have a lot of free speech in, say, china. You can say whatever you want. They might kill you for it, but that's just the consequences, so it's still free speech, right?
          Is that how you want it to work?

          • "It doesn't? If it carries consequences, then it ain't free speech. If that were the definition of free speech, then hey, you have a lot of free speech in, say, china. You can say whatever you want. They might kill you for it, but that's just the consequences, so it's still free speech, right?
            Is that how you want it to work?"

            What the parent means is that you do not have the right to commit slander, libel, etc. Let's think of what absolute free speech means:

            -no perjury laws (or you wouldn't have free speech on the bench)

            -you can incite illegal actions--such as telling someone to kill someone--without reproach

            -you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, probably leading to injuries an property damage and certainly leading to lost revenue for the theatre owner, and not be responsible even if it is just a prank

            This is not what the founding fathers and other governmental people intended when they wrote ratified the first amendment. They were trying to protect against censoring speech because of political messages. While parodies are of course protected, they cease to be protected when they cross the line to fradulent misrepresentation, and the Yes Men arguably did with their parody and certainly did when they sent links to journalists claiming that they represent Dow and were issuing a press release.
      • 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?

        Clearly the poisoning is worse... but two wrongs never make a right.
    • Not that Dow is squeaky clean ... but that's beside the point. You don't get a free pass to break whatever law no matter how good your cause, even for civil disobedience. Worst of all, it is so unnecessary.

      The "parody" site is deliberately misleading, and downright offensive. When I looked for at least a disclaimer, I find instead "Copyright © The Dow Company." The entire site appears to be structured similarly. This insults our intelligence. What, the critics' argument aren't good enough to stand alone? We won't appreciate it unless fooled?

      The only reason I was studying the site for hints was the warning I received in advance. Their domain name dowethics adds nicely to the fakery -- certainly it is a plausible name for a corporation to operate.

      Parody can be protected speech, but not automatically. Impersonation and falsehood are not protected -- else it would be impossible to prosecute con men. Here, it doesn't even matter if they're telling the truth -- they can't pretend to be Dow. No brainer.
  • 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.

  • by tizzyD (577098) <tizzyd@NospaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @01:56PM (#4994107) Homepage
    (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!
    • by outsider007 (115534) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:07PM (#4994161)
      basically this whole story is a troll and people will be falling for it for the next 24 hours or so.

      good times.
    • 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.

    • by mat catastrophe (105256) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:47PM (#4994274) Homepage

      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.

  • by craenor (623901) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:00PM (#4994125) Homepage
    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.
    • Should the government (or corporations maliciously using the legal system-->therefore government) be able to pressure ISP's about content?
    • 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.

      You miss the point - they didn't take the site down (a customer of theirs for many years) because they wanted to, they took it down because they were forced to after being hit with the DMCA. The safe harbor provisions in the DMCA makes them take it down, or be sued themselves. To me this all equals web censorship. Whether the site is right or wrong, there were other ways Dow could have approached this - they went for the 'Let's silence our enemy' tactic.
  • by fermion (181285) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:03PM (#4994140) Homepage Journal
    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

    • 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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FFFish (7567) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:11PM (#4994170) Homepage
    ...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.
    • 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.
    • You can, and it doesn't have to be an American citizen that got it either. As long as the board members are in the US, you can bring them up on charges. They'll pin them on an Indian exec, but the company will have to hold it's head in shame from the publicity. That's why there are conspiracy crimes (conspiracy to commit murder etc.) and accessory crimes (even if they know what would happen, they are accessories since they have the power to stop it).
    • by sedmonds (94908)
      1> Union Carbide plant suffers catastrophic incident, resulting in hundreds and thousands of injuries to employees and families.

      2> Dow Chemical purchases Union Carbide plant.

      3> Dow Chemical CEO should pe bunished for the accident.

      What are you smoking to get that conclusion from the first two events?

      Yes, its horrible that people were injured and died as a result of the industrial accident. Its pretty rotten to sue the victims and their families for disrupting work.

      Its disturbing that idiots will personal harm to the officers and representatives of Dow for an accident which occured at a plant BEFORE THEY OWNED IT.

      Even so, holding a CEO responsible for every occurance involving every job site is insane. In cases where the CEO had prior knowledge, sure, but making the assumption that every officer of every company knows every detail of business in a company employing tens of thousands worldwide is laughable.

      It may look a lot nicer on your 5 o'clock news to see corporate officer Joe hauled away in handcuffs, but it doesn't satisfy justice pinning everything on just the officers. Justice is satisfied by the prosecution of the offenders. Those who commited crimes, or exercised -unreasonable- negligence.
    • by kaphka (50736) <1nv7b001@sneakemail.com> on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @05:51PM (#4995106)
      ...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" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eyeball (17206) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:16PM (#4994180) Journal
    ... 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.

    • by 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...
      • In truth, DOW did nothing wrong. They should, however, clean up the messes that Union Carbide left behind.

        Frankly, I'd hardly call delivering TOXIC WASTE to a public place a "peaceful protest". I never really liked Greenpeace, and this reminds me why.
    • 1 Dow contaminates the soil. 2 The women scoop up the souil that DOW HAS CONTAMINATED and brings it back to Dow. 3 Dow sues the women for returing the soil that THEY (Dow) contaminated. And you think that Dow's right here? Expect to get a call form ther president offering you a job, 'cause you're no better then him!
  • 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.
    • 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.


      Greenpeace has their own spin, but. as has been stated by others here, Dow probably had to spend money to clean up the chemicals the protestors brought with them, etc.

      Two wrongs don't make a right. Did those protestors think about how they were spreading the environmental impact by collecting chemicals from one location and potentially contaminating another? Or just about what good press they would get?

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


      Which ones? The ones who, having made a mistake, half-assedly tried to clean it up and then abandoned their work, or the ones deliberately trying to cause (or at least threaten) environmental harm not only to the culprit but to anyone nearby?

      I'm disgusted by Greenpeace's role in this. They've figuratively gone from trying to block Japanese whalers to dragging whale carcasses into a city and leaving them in front of a building where the whalers have offices, not caring that it's a public street and others would have to clean up their mess.

      The protesters' attitudes might have been summarized by "they messed up our backyard, let's mess up theirs," but where does that lead, except to two messed up backyards?
  • by bm_luethke (253362) <luethkeb@comcEEE ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:17PM (#4994187)
    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).
    • I'm just pissed off that no actual newspapers seem to have covered this story... a search for "Bhopal" at nytimes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, washingtonpost.com, latimes.com, and Proquest (through Penn State; search terms "Bhopol AND PDN(>12/01/2002) AND PDN(01/01/2003)") yielded no relavant results. I want to know what happened... why are people hushing this up?
    • by LostCluster (625375) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @05:05PM (#4994867)
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by backtick (2376) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:30PM (#4994227) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:2, Informative)

      by Gatsby137 (632418)
      I found this document [bhopal.com] while Googling for more info on the Bhopal disaster--it's more or less the story of the disaster and the ensuing legal mess from Union Carbide/Dow's point-of-view. (Google lets us view it as HTML here [216.239.33.100].)

      I tend to agree with the above poster. I'm not usually one to defend a corporation, but it looks like Dow did make an awful lot of reparations. The actual truth of the matter, I'm sure, is obscured far beyond our ability to discern it, particularly by a few minutes of Googling. Cheers, Mike V.

      • Very nice. But I'm not sure that an expert from Union Carbide counts as disinterested testimony.

        And none of this justifies suing the survivors for 10 years income because they protested. I don't care that DOW may have felt that the protest was unjust. It was no where near as unjust as the reaction. It makes me wish that the entire upper management of the corp would be taken out and mutilated. In a way that left them unable to speak coherently or feed themselves. Permanently.

        If they can't understand that the survivors may be desperate, and that they have some responsibility for **EFFECTIVE** relief, then they can't be counted as humans. Yeah, they paid some money. So? Their responsibility wasn't to pay money, their responsibility was to ameliorate the damage that they had, at minimum, contributed to. (The safety standards by which the plant was operated were unconsciousable. Legal, I believe, and so *** what!)
    • Re:Dow's Responses (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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.
  • by teetam (584150) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:30PM (#4994228) Homepage
    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!

    • Please everyone, condemn the right party.

      ** Dow bought Union Carbide 2 years ago. [bhopal.com] **

      Dow is 100% liable for Union Carbide obligations, that comes with the purchase, but did not "kill" anybody at Bhopal in 1984 -- nearly 20 years ago.
    • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @05:19PM (#4994906)
      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.

  • ...are going to use the Greenpeace letter generator [greenpeace.org] to send a complain to the Dow CEO? It'd be interesting to get a gauge on how much mail he'll be getting...
  • "we firmly believe that those who violate the right to Corporate Free Speech have no place on a commercial network like the internet.

    It's another example of our committment to Living. Improved Daily. With an internet shaped by Corporate Free Speech.


    Just another example of some PR manager having his head too far up his ass.
  • A lot of people don't understand the concept, so I'll explain. Everyone in America can think of at least 10 good laws about speech that would improve society. I know I can. Ban hate speech, ban those psychic ball-gazing frauds, ban tobacco advertisements, and so on. And those would be good laws. In my opinion.

    Unfortunately, everyone else has a different set of good laws for restricting speech. And I probably don't agree with most of them. The only way to come to agreement on how we restrict speech will therefore be through our elected officials.

    The founders understood that. And they also understood that the government bodies they were setting up simply wouldn't be perfect enough to be trusted with making these kind of laws. For that reason they put up a fence around that area of the law. The First Ammendment establishes that the government can't make laws regarding speech, and that it can't make laws regarding religion. Sure, some good might be accomplished if the fence wasn't there, but eventually the damage would outweigh the good.

    So everytime you see some piece of speech that you think shouldn't be allowed, restrain yourself. Don't call for it to be banned. The government isn't smart enough to be messing around in there. Protecting that speech protects your speech.

  • RTMark sent out spam. Unsolicited mass email. Whether it was a political rant, a parody, or "INCREASE YOUR PENIS SIZE" doesn't matter, I didn't ask for it, I didn't want it, and it still arrived in my (and many other people's) mailbox.


    I sent a message to RTMark's ISP (The Thing), complaining about the message, and that it violated their Terms of Service. This isn't the first time that I have received spam from RTMark, or is it the first time that I have complained about it, and yet it had not stopped. If The Thing refused to do anything about it, or if they condoned it, then they are no better than a bunch of worthless spammers, and I'm glad that Verio cut them off.

  • Don't ya just love the web? Here's the link [greenpeace.org] to instantly write a letter to Dow.

    And here's what I just sent them:

    As the new CEO and President of Dow Chemical Company, I am stunned at your actions against the survivors of the Bhopal, India industrial tragedy. Dow has been a respected name in corporate America for so many years. But this incomprehensible treatment of the poor and sick, when you should be doing everything in your power to make things right, to offer aid and rebuilding, health care and clean up, changes my vision of Dow and its executives and my family and I have lost all respect.

    Once again the almighty dollar rules a corporation rather than the fundamental care of the people who once supported it. It matters not that this incident occurred under Union Carbide, you knew this when you bought them.

    You know quite well that if this had happened in the U.S., this would have been fixed by now. To attack a poor and innocent people, those that have lost many family and still struggle to survive, shows your true bully side. To think that you would do this because they dared to perform a peaceful protest is nothing more than shocking to me. Dow was always such a respected name.

    When you add to that your treatment of the parody site Dow-chemical and the whole YesMen fiasco, to use such an ill-gotten law as the DMCA to silence the web and force the take down of not only a web site, but also an entire ISP is unfathomable. It shows that your new stance is to merely silence those who would dare stand up to you, and this is nothing more than a cartelish, mob mentality than can no longer have respect.

    I implore you to correct this. To drop your charges against the poor and suffering of India, and to drop your charges against a parody web site, which under the US copyright law, it is perfectly legal to parody just about anything.

    I have begun my march to inform those in my family and my place of work of your actions. Others are doing the same. Will you sue me too just to silence me?

    I grew up with the name of Dow and have always believed it be an important and respected company. Unless these serious issues are corrected, I can no longer ignore the truth, nor can I think of Dow with any high regard.

    Take note that I am writing this to you via the convience of the web. Yes, the Internet is a wonderful and rich thing which allows us to recieve such information and respond accordingly, even on New Year's Day. The DMCA does nothing but silence this information. But I include my own salutation, because I do not agree with the one built into this online form.

    With utmost sincerity,

    A very aware U.S. citizen-
    (name here)
  • I never find myself on this side of the argument, but the only thing I see here which is not steaming troll meat is the Dow DMCA complaint, which is actually pretty reasonable. The owner of the dow-chemical domain is not named George Dow-Chemical, images and text WERE taken from the dow web site without their permission, and all of this was used to deceive the public as to the intents and actions of Dow.

    One could actually make a pretty good argument that those opposed to the DMCA wish only to plagarize and deceive, based on the actions of these parodists. For this reason, I cannot support their efforts. Freedom of information is too important to me.

    • and all of this was used to deceive the public as to the intents and actions of Dow.

      I think you mean "make clear to the public the real intents and actions of Dow", don't you? That is the point of satire and I don't see any reason why mass murderers should be allowed to hide behind something as trivial as copyright laws to protect them from having their actions brought to larger attention.

      TWW

      • You misunderstand. I in no way oppose anyone saying anything. But saying something while misrepresenting yourself as the party you are attempting to criticize is cowardly and illegal.

        Discussing the actions of Dow is one thing. Doing so with a domain name and web site format intended to deceive the viewer as to the source of the material is quite another.

        I happen to agree with you with regard to the behavior of Dow, but giving the Dows of the world more ammunition to shut down public participation by clearly attemtpting to deceive the public is no way to effectively protest it.

      • I don't see any reason why mass murderers should be allowed to hide behind something as trivial as copyright laws to protect them from having their actions brought to larger attention.

        In what regard are these mass murderers? Certainly Dow had no involvement with or ability to alter the circumstances involving Bhopal befire the fact. And to be honest I really doubt that there are any people that were involved with the Bhopal incident still with UC at the time of its acquisition by Dow.

        If you are talking about some form of corporate responsibility, well, yes. Certainly the UC of 1984 was responsible for this disaster. And they paid the price for it, both financial and in the courts of public opinion. Dow must continue to assume the liabilities associated with this as a corporation because of their acquisition of UC.

        As for murder, I have my doubts that it applies in this case. Murder involves intent to kill somebody. Nobody has any evidence that anyone at UC said 'let's kill off a bunch of folks in India'. Calling this murder really shows that you have no interest in presenting the facts fairly.

  • I tried to send this to the story gods at slashdot as an amendment to my posting of this story. I guess that it didn't get there in time or they chose not to amend my submission (Although it was edited from the way I submitted it). Anyway here is a link to The Register's article [theregister.co.uk].
  • "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." This Parker guy is truly evil. He has no conflict whatsoever about what he's doing . He even admits it within his comments. "Many others" might be outraged that Dow is responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands and thousands of people, but not Mr. Parker! The fact then Dow is (then) able to use the DMCA to cut off discussion of their nightmarish deeds gives the perfect example of why this evil law needs to be overturned.... NOW!!!
  • by geekee (591277) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @04:51PM (#4994809)
    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.
  • by release7 (545012) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @05:41PM (#4995052) Homepage Journal
    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?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Black Copter Control (464012) <samuel-localNO@SPAMbcgreen.com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @12:26AM (#4996760) Homepage Journal
    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

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...