Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Dow vs. Parody 363

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This discussion has been archived.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 dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @01:50PM (#4994087) Homepage
    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 AT gmail DOT 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 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.
  • 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

  • by UpLateDrinkingCoffee ( 605179 ) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:22PM (#4994198)
    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.

  • by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @02:57PM (#4994324) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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 sedmonds ( 94908 ) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @03:52PM (#4994530) Homepage
    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 the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @03:57PM (#4994545)
    Per capita, Americans use more energy, more oil, more gas than any other nation in the world.

    That sort of automatically follows from the fact that America has the highest GDP and GDP/capita, doesn't it?

    Personally I agree with you that the US should be doing a lot more to control it's greenhouse gas emissions. But tirades that ignore the fact that there are other sources of pullution in this world, and in fact the US is not doing that badly in terms of pullution per GDP do little to address the overall problem.

    If you look at statistics like pollution / GDP, which is a much more indicitive measure of how a society is handling pollution issues, America is not the highest in the world, and isn't even close. For example if you look at lb. of sulfur dioxide emissions per $1000 USD GDP we have the following as the top polluters.

    Poland
    Greece
    Australia
    Canada
    Turkey
    Czech
    China
    Russia

    In fact the situation with pollution in China is so bad that 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China.

    China, with a GDP equal to about 10% of the US GDP releases 13% of the world's CO2 vs. the US's 23%. That is a factor of more than 5 per GDP dollar greater than the US. At this rate, and China's rate of economic growth it is estimated that China will be the #1 CO2 emitter by the end of the decade. By 2020 China is expected to be emitting more CO2 than the US, Japan and Canada combined.

    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. And even worse is the efficiency of that growth in terms of pollution per GDP dollar.

  • 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."
  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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?)
  • Swept away (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Forgotten ( 225254 ) on Wednesday January 01, 2003 @05:53PM (#4995113)
    The amazing thing to me is that no mainstream media seems to have picked up that astonishing, week-old "Dow sues protestors" story. It doesn't seem to exist outside of indie and activist sites. Guess that's not the sort of anniversary they want to allude to this time of year? Another reason to hate xmas, I suppose - it makes the media even more useless than it usually is.

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Working...