Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses News

Wal-Mart Parody Site Censored by DMCA 469

davidwr writes "Wal-Mart used the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to temporarily shut down a university student's parody of the Wal-Mart Foundation." The story's details are also available via BusinessWeek. From the article: "Papasian launched the Web site April 16 for an art class at Carnegie Mellon University called 'Parasitic Media.' The class teaches students about the political uses of satire in the media. He acknowledged using Wal-Mart's graphics on his Web site but said he believed he could use the images as part of a parody."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wal-Mart Parody Site Censored by DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • by aphor ( 99965 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:32AM (#12371526) Journal

    If you alter the content, they have no claim against DMCA. MalWart != WalMart.

  • Foolish boy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:32AM (#12371536)
    ... didn't he read the clause about 'if and only if you have the legal resources to make an argument about it'?

    Exceptions to copyright for parody, fair use, etc. only apply to those who have lawyers.

  • by FortKnox ( 169099 ) * on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:33AM (#12371545) Homepage Journal
    This is getting way to much press. Lemmie put it to you this way:
    Walmart Foundation: www.walmartfoundation.org
    Parody Site: www.walmart-foundation.org

    Walmart is NOT bitching about this.

    He basically has a site where people probably stumble onto when they are trying to go to a legit site. Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.

    I can't tell you how we ALL have known since the web was invented that you don't steal other peoples graphics. Sure, there may be some grey area with parodies, but its the same thing we knew when we were just getting into making HTML.

    But, since this kid wants press, he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl.
    He rolled the dice and lost... and all it was was over the stupid graphics.

    I say, "its an art class, how about making PARODIES of the IMAGES too?"

    No extra publicity in that, though...
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:34AM (#12371563)
    "The goal was to make the site look like it could be a real site from a company like Wal-Mart, but have text that was so ridiculous that anyone who read it would realize that it was absurd," Papasian said in a statement on his revamped Web site. "If anyone believed it to be a real Wal-Mart site, that is only a testament to the degree of absurdity that exists within corporate America today."

    Due to all the retarded behavior that our fellow citizens exhibit on a daily basis I am never surprised when I see people falling for direct parody.

    I am also not surprised that corporations are allowed to shutdown *what was likely fair use*. Sadly, someday, we will all look back on this and say, "look how free we once were. It survived 400 hits before it was taken down. They didn't even have to approve the webpage before it was posted."
  • by yroJJory ( 559141 ) <me@@@jory...org> on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:34AM (#12371565) Homepage
    there are very clear precedents stating what is cool and what isn't.

    Making a parody is cool. Using the original artwork to create your parody isn't.

    Even when making a parody of a song, you must pay royalties on the original and you must obtain permission should you use any portion of the original mechanical.

    If you're gonna create a parody site, you simply cannot snag artwork from the original, and you certainly can't use the company's actual logo!
  • by TheNinjaroach ( 878876 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:36AM (#12371582)
    I thought the DMCA protected protection-schemes, not copyright law.. It's not like Walmart put copy-protection on the JPEGs. I didn't think the copyright would apply anyways, wouldn't this site be allowed fair use of the images? It's not like he's trying to compete with them.
    I still hate the DMCA..
  • by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:36AM (#12371585) Homepage

    How to shoot yourself in the foot in three easy steps.

    1. Get annoyed at tiny web-site, which gets less than 400 hits a day, (Slashdot gets this traffic in 20 seconds.) which has the audacity to rubbish your brand-name.
    2. Send cease and desist letter to owner of domain and ISP.
    3. Finally, wait for the story to arrive in the main-stream where the site containing the slanderous speach is now linked to be all and sundry and the site now gets traffic upward of 20 hits a second.

    Simon.

  • by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:37AM (#12371597) Homepage Journal
    If he hadn't leveraged any WalMart code or graphics he wouldn't have any problems. He could still do the site if he were to build a look alike from scratch. Some of the graphics he used were Wal-Mart property, and even in parody the use of their graphics would not be legally protected.
  • by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:38AM (#12371608)
    It looks like WalMart imports more than just cheap goods created by virtual slave labor from China.

    Now they're further hurting our trade deficit by importing clamp-down tactics from the Chinese communist government!
  • by CokeBear ( 16811 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:38AM (#12371613) Journal
    Apparantly, its not just Soviet Russia. It happens in the USA now too. Quite sad, actually, that the cold war was fought for 50 years against a totalitairan regime, only to win, and take on some of the elements of that regime ourselves.
  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:41AM (#12371662)
    "Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor." ~ William Orville Douglas (1898-1980) US Supreme Court associate justice, 1935-75, professor of law at Yale
    "Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody can read." ~ George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British playwright & novelist
    "The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it." ~ John Perry Barlow (1947-) Wyoming cattle rancher, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead
    "I believe in censorship. After all, I made a fortune out of it." ~ Mae West (1892-1980) American comedienne from "My Little Chickadee," 1940.
    "Censorship is almost systematically the weapon of first resort for governments in uncertain political situations. So not only are the famous writers and bold journalists in danger; at every level of public and private life, the freedoms to think, read or write are denied. In the absence of a free press, other human rights abuses flourish unabated. Nothing is reported, criticized, questioned. The example of imprisonment, torture or execution imposes a further silence. A blindly obedient mob mentality is encouraged, driven by extremist religious or ethnic loyalties. The citizens do not know what is happening. Fear and ignorance permeate discussion." ~ Marian Botsford Fraser
    "Censor: A self-appointed snoophound who sticks his nose in other people's business." ~ Bennett Cerf
    [quotes from zaadz.com]
  • by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:41AM (#12371674)
    Walmart is NOT bitching about this.

    You're right, they're not bitching, they're having their lawyers shut the place down.

    Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.

    Which is irrelevant, as (according to Section 107 of the US Copyright act) it was fair use:
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

    Parody is both criticism and commentary.

    there may be some grey area with parodies

    Uh, no. There is no gray - it is very much black and white.

    he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl

    And rightly so. His First Amendment rights are being violated.
  • by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 ( 812236 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:42AM (#12371679) Journal
    Even if he did copy their graphics and logos and so on, their lawyers asked the entire site to be made offline.

    How is that fair? By all means, use the DMCA and whatever other laws to request that he remove the offending graphics. But remove the site from public access? That, too, is crossing the line.

    Also, IANAL, but aren't parodies deemed fair use?
  • by grungebox ( 578982 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:42AM (#12371680) Homepage
    I think it's a safe bet to include DMCA in any C&D letter. Even if it doesn't apply, it's a good legal scare tactic. Everyone's afraid of the DMCA.
  • No Credibility (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ImTwoSlick ( 723185 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:42AM (#12371687)
    If anyone believed it to be a real Wal-Mart site, that is only a testament to the degree of absurdity that exists within corporate America today.

    This guy lost all credibility with this one statement. What does the ability of someone to mistake this site for a real one have anything to do with absurdity within corporate America? This guy is just spouting off rhetoric. Plain and simple.

  • Wal-Mart does not care about this kind of bad PR. The people who would find this type of action detestable are not Wal-Mart's target demographic. Wal-Mart has continually eaten bags of poop in the mainstream media over their staunch opposition to unions and the way they've destroyed most mom-and-pop type stores, but this hasn't translated to lost sales for them, because the people who shop at Wal-Mart care about one thing, and one thing only: low prices. As long as this suit doesn't lead to higher prices, Wal-Mart will come out of it financially unscathed.
  • by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:54AM (#12371862)
    Is there any desire or reward for going against the left-wing groupthink that might naturally occur amongst art students?

    'Scuse me? You want professors to offer a reward - presumably, higher marks - for producing specifically right-wing propaganda?

  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:57AM (#12371902)
    CHOOSING to shop at wal-mart, eat at McDonalds or believe in a mythical superbeing?
    Sometimes there is no choice, the town has one WalMart and the rest of the small businesses go under leaving you no choice in where to buy -or- you must travel far away to go to a small independent shop.
    Greed is the driving factor among everything these days, the competition is brutal and the labor is cheap....is this a lefty view? or just a rational one?
  • Re:Walmart (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 241comp ( 535228 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:58AM (#12371915) Homepage
    To be honest, it's NOT WalMart that causes this (if it even really happens). It is the customers who do it to themselves. If we are all so price-conscious (read: cheap) that we shut down all the local shops in our home town... let's just say that we reap what we sow. The tragedy of the commons and all that jazz.
  • by Farmer Tim ( 530755 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:01AM (#12371962) Journal
    Not only is it criticism and commentary, but this is a student engaged in an activity directly related to scholarship, so that's three counts in his favour.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:04AM (#12372005)
    You seem to believe that there is either left-wing or right-wing propaganda, that you must choose one or the other. I don't think professors should be rewarding any particular agenda. They should be rewarding reason, rationality, and thoughtfulness in their arguments. Instead professors seem to reward groupthink, which in this country, seems to be shoehorned into either progressive or conservative. There is no room for the individual view. You must choose one of the two camps.
  • by Shalda ( 560388 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:05AM (#12372015) Homepage Journal
    Walmart is only objecting to the use of their logos, not the parody itself. This is a farily reasonable request. No one has actually been sued, WalMart simply had their lawyers send out a Cease and Desist letter. They probably send out several of them every day. WalMart is well within their rights to demand this. While the parody site was intending to make this look as much like an official WalMart site as possible, the can run afoul of trademark law. The right thing to do is to parody the WalMart graphics as well. Not a lawyer, but WalMart is probably in the right on this one.
  • by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:13AM (#12372129)
    And Lindows != Windows

    Oh, wait!
  • by johnny cashed ( 590023 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:14AM (#12372137) Homepage
    Is a rework of Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise. Who is taking from whom here? Of course, I'm sure Stevie was duly compensated.
  • Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:17AM (#12372182)
    Thanks for replying, it's good to get some feedback from someone "in the field" (even if it's only tangentally related.)

    anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original

    Yes, however I believe that deciding if something is a parody or not is a different issue than whether a parody is protected.

    The previous poster said that parody is not considered fair use, and that it's a violation of copyright to use someone else's material in a parody, and I was correcting him (or her?)

    those kinds of arguments can be expensive to prove

    Which is why we (well me, and probably the people who modded me up :o) are outraged.

    protection really does only apply to those who can afford to at least get the issue in fromt of a judge

    Which (again) is another issue entirely - and (if I may say) is a sad, sad comment on the state of free speech in the country that claims to value its' freedom so much.
  • Yes, people shop at Wal-Mart because of low prices but the reason they have to shop low prices is that their wages have gone down (in real terms) over the past 30 years.

    As an example, my wife graduated from HS in 1974 and her first job was at paper plant. The job was union and paid $7 per hour and worked 40 hours a week. This, mind you, for a HS grad with no college and no special skills in a small city north of Seattle. By the time she left that job (in 1980) she was making over $10 per hour and getting full medical.

    Then wages went into the toilet. Now kids are lucky to get a $7 job (at Wal-Mart) and work 20-hours a week.

    In 1974 you could buy a house ($35,000 for a 3br/2ba home in the Seattle area) with a $7/hour job. In 2005 houses there average $250,000. Try buying one of those right out of HS.

    So ya... people shop for cheap prices but only because we don't have much of a choice any more.

  • by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:39AM (#12372507)

    Libel applies whereever you attribute something in writing to someone who does not hold that belief. It is always legally actionable.

    Check out the Flynt case, before the Supreme Court. Said libel also has to be *believable.* Hence, when Flynt published things about Falwell's mother's, ah, *taste*, it was found to be parody because no one in their right mind would believe it.

    That's kinda what parody is.

  • Warms my heart (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mark_jabroni ( 547666 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:42AM (#12372552)
    After so many artists pushed for the DMCA (and other oppressive copyright laws) to be enacted, few things make me as happy as seeing an artist get crushed by the laws his fellows fought to create.

    But what I enjoy even most is when this leads to the conclusion that it's because of the powerful corporations that these sorts of evil things happen.

    This is the progressive circle of life. Progressives decide the establishment has a problem. Progressives pitch legislation that sucks to solve the problem. The legislation is enacted and then (shocker) it starts to suck. Progressives then use legislation sucking as proof that the establishment has a problem. Progressive pitch new legislation that sucks even more. Elton John starts singing ...

  • by SiliconEntity ( 448450 ) * on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:51AM (#12372674)
    Right, the DMCA [eff.org] is not what makes this parody site a violation of copyright (if it is). That is a standard provision of other copyright law.

    The relevant part of the DMCA [eff.org], in fact, is just the opposite. Sec 512, "Limitations on liability relating to material online" provides a means to ESCAPE liability for copyright violation. Specifically, it allows an ISP not to be held liable as long as it follows a certain procedure. The ISP has to publish an address for complaints; upon receiving a complaint from a copyright holder, it has to take down the material and notify the client who posted it; and then the client has the option to contest the takedown order, in which case the ISP has to put the material back up, absent a court order.

    This part of the DMCA is actually end-user- and ISP-friendly. Without it we would see much less support for possibly copyrighted materials appearing online.
  • Re:Foolish boy... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slapout ( 93640 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:54AM (#12372709)
    Saturday Night Live uses the exact graphics from other companies in their paraodies. But then again SNL isn't very funny, so maybe that doesn't count...
  • Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rick the Red ( 307103 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [deR.ehT.kciR]> on Thursday April 28, 2005 @12:05PM (#12372898) Journal
    Perhaps, but what does the DMCA have to do with it? The very fact that Walmart chose to cry "DMCA violation!" tells me they know they don't have a case and are just trying (successfully) to intimidate the guy.
  • walmart sucks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by iowa119900089 ( 854612 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @12:31PM (#12373213)
    So I will not shop there. Target also sucks so I will not shop there either. It's amazing how I can find what I want off the internet or from a grocery store or smaller shops around town. It is easy not to shop at WalMart so why bitch and scream. Just don't go there.
  • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @12:36PM (#12373294)
    When a huge corporation promotes itself as having a 'cleaner-than-thou' image, and then muscles down on someone who mocks this image in a tiny inperceptable forum, they often will generate a backlash in the media; the alternative media if not the major outlets.

    Then the parody gets recognized far wider than it would have from its initial presentation. This brings recognition to the parodist and simulates discussion on the practices of the corporation and the contrasts between its business practices and its manufactured image. Smart business execs usually know this and will work to avoid publicity amplification. Walmart execs tend to be more mean than savvy.

    Perhaps the clearest example of this publicity effect is the Disneyland Orgy [illegal-art.org] which would have disappeared as an urban legend if clueless Disney execs had not have gone batshit when it appeared and mounted a huge effort to destroy it. As you can see, it lives now on the web forever. It still is pretty funny.
  • by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @12:38PM (#12373310) Journal
    Exactly. But Coolio could not sue even though permission was not given. Weird Al stated that he never does parody songs without permission, and has, for example, not done a parody of Prince's 'Purple Rain' (I think) for this reason.
    He further stated this is not a legal requirement, just an attempt to keep relations between him and the music industry on good terms.

    I, for one, always make my legal decisions based on Weird Al quotes.
  • Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teromajusa ( 445906 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @12:52PM (#12373509)
    until the US legal system starts making those who sue and lose, pay for the defendant's legal costs, corporations and others with lots of funding, will continue to use the legal system as a business tool, used for intimidation and career advancement.

    A corporation can easily afford to pay the legal bills of their opponent if they loose. How many individuals can say the same? Individuals would be even less likely to face off against corporations if the consequences of loosing was a mamoth corporate legal bill. You'd only attempt it if you were certain to win - and how often in legal disputes is victory certain?

  • by unassimilatible ( 225662 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @01:12PM (#12373752) Journal
    They took all the images right off of the Wal Mart site. It's copyright violation, pure and simple, not "censorship."

  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @01:37PM (#12374063)
    It always amazes me how little everything changes. Hundreds of years of social "advancement" and we are still living in a quasi serfdom while the good citizens or kansas debate whether evolution is a valid scientific threory and whether the fact that god doesn't like homosexuality is grounds enough to deny people rights.

    Will we ever rise above hording goods and looking to the sky for answers?
  • by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @02:10PM (#12374468)
    This is yet another example of the DMCA being abused to silence legitimate free speech. If any more evidence was needed concerning the unintended consequences of this legislation then surely this most recent incident fits the bill. The DMCA has utterly failed in its intended effects, prevention of wholesale copyright infringement in the digital age, and it has manifested many negative side effects. The copyright infringement which is currently taking place on the file sharing networks is nothing that could not be prosecuted under pre-DMCA copyright law and any notion that hackers in Russia, China, and elsewhere give a damn about what US laws say about circumvention devices, or anything else for that matter, is living in la-la-land. Meanwhile the DMCA has been used to muzzle free expression, stifle innovation, intimidate researchers, negate fair use, impede competition, and browbeat technology companies. The DMCA has done nothing to advance the progress of useful arts and sciences in this country while causing tremendous collateral damage to free speech. The other problem with laws such as the DMCA, which is rarely mentioned, is that unjust, poorly written, and unfair laws breed contempt, even among otherwise law abiding citizens, for all laws and that is dangerous because it strikes against the barrier that separates civilized society from utter chaos and anarchy. One can only hope that the DMCA will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, but until that day most people will continue to ignore the unjust provisions of this legislation in the same way that they ignored prohibition and every other law which makes criminals out of honest and hard-working everyday Americans.
  • by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @02:43PM (#12374936)
    I like high prices. I like buying hardware at a local store that competes with Walmart. I like the local hardware store being closed after 5:30, even though the sink may have started leaking at 9 PM. I like getting up at 2 in the morning to empty a bucket, on a weekend, waiting for that other store to open, so I can pay 50% extra for the part I will need.

    Why? Because that store carries other parts Walmart just won't carry. That little store has a guy who will do some free fixing and adjustment on my chain-saw just to sell me a new chain now and then, and when I needed a file to sharpen it, that store had one in stock that was 'right', not 'halfway close'. That store will sell me one washer or Woodroffe key from a bin, and for the washer, Walmart wants to sell me a pack of a dozen with a dozen-minus-one sizes I don't need, while for the Woodroffe key, Walmart wants to sell me a blank stare. Go compare a section of Walmart with a specialty store that sells just that section, and that 'low selection' is 'on the other foot'.
    I can save money at Walmart now. When that drives the little hardware store out of business, I will spend all that money I saved, and a whole lot more, doing things like hiring a professional to completely replace that window with the busted crank, instead of replacing a simple assembly myself, because only a few full-time pros can now afford to keep the parts for thousands of different windows in stock, and the only way they can make money is to charge for more repairs than are strictly needed.
    I'm one of those jack of all trades guys. I build my own PCs, do my own carpentry, plumbing and wiring, rebuild my transmission, and even have liscences and paperwork for some of these skills. The only time I turn a car, a plumbing job, or electrical work over to a pro is when it would take me more than my time's worth, and they are actually cheaper. Walmart is pushing out the supplyers I need to keep this up, and even the original poster's claim to detest Walmart and all it stands for doesn't seem too strong. Frankly speaking any more politely than that about Walmart feels about like saying "This pesky Multiple Sclerosis is getting in the way of my laying a new tile floor in the bathroom and I find that a trifle inconvenient.".

  • by m50d ( 797211 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @03:03PM (#12375199) Homepage Journal
    The US used to have this thing called "fair use" where copying that would otherwise be infringing for the purpose of parody was legal. Wonder what happened to that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @03:07PM (#12375230)
    What is this, "Waah, it went over my head so I'm going to sue?"

    Parody is still parody even if you're too stupid to "get it".
  • by Kinthelt ( 96845 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @05:10PM (#12376574) Homepage
    It's posts like these that deserve more than just a score of 5.
  • by MasterOfUniverse ( 812371 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @05:13PM (#12376621)
    Its sad that the parent comment is modded funny and not insightful...
  • by CritterNYC ( 190163 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @05:44PM (#12376902) Homepage
    The US used to have this thing called "fair use" where copying that would otherwise be infringing for the purpose of parody was legal. Wonder what happened to that.

    The MAFIAA [mafiaa.org] has successfully killed most fair use through technological methods coupled with laws like the DMCA. Add in a dose of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and the Walmarts of the world can do whatever the hell they want to you.
  • One solution (Score:2, Insightful)

    by polyex ( 736819 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @05:19AM (#12381338)
    I see all this arguing going back and forth about whether what Wal-Mart is doing is legal or not. As if the legality of this issue means anything to you as an individual. People have taken action in the past regardless of whether what they were protesting was currently legal (remember segregation?). If you do not like what Wal-Mart is doing, stop shopping there. Use the golden rule.Stop giving them YOUR money to enable Wal-Mart to do things that you do not like. And stop finding excuses to go there and buy more crap than you really do not need in the name of convenience for you. Take a week away from Wal-Mart and encourage others to do the same, thats your strongest power as an individual.

It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

Working...