Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Businesses Your Rights Online

Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men 308

Posted by kdawson
from the can't-take-a-joke dept.
tom_evil notes a story up on Infoshop.org about a parody site and the lack of a sense of humor in a large multinational. "One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno. Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men

Comments Filter:
  • This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

    Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
    • by hotdiggitydawg (881316) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:26PM (#19702033)

      This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
      So take the power back then. Name and shame the ISP, and vote with your wallet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....


      Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.
      • by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @06:02PM (#19702207)
        This shouldn't be moderated flamebait -- it's true enough. The US is *NOT* the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get shut down.

        Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)

        Yes, there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!
        • by ArsonSmith (13997)
          Not only that, but it was a business deciding not to do business with someone due to a complaint against that person. I do not wish to live in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of things on your own. ADA and Affermitive action are bad enough for many businesses as it is and have put many out of business.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TapeCutter (624760)
            " I do not wish to live in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of things on your own."

            So a "whites only" sign on the door is ok?
            • by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @08:46PM (#19702773)
              Absolutely.

              Then the asshole with said sign will be on display for what he is, the media will come around, and no one will ever go in there for fear of being associated with racism.
              • Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

                by benhocking (724439)
                That's exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it worked then, surely it would still work today!
        • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire.

          There didn't have to be, because a phoney-baloney catholic mayor who was banging some tootsie who wasn't his wife fell all over himself shutting down the art exhibit before the Christian Right could load their letter-writing campaign.

          You don't need guerrilla violence when you've got all the power. All in all, these latest "terror-bombers" in the UK didn't hurt anyone but themselves, but Exxon kills hundreds of

          • by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @08:43PM (#19702751)
            Right, but Piss Christ was paid for with tax payer money. the Danish cartoons were not. Say what you want, but don't expect the government to pay you for it.

            Also, my original point wasn't that Exxon kills more or less people, or even to do with terrorism. Just that it's ridiculous to claim the US is the only nation where this sort of thing goes on. Seriously -- try saying anything remotely anti-Islam in Iran. You are very free to criticize Bush, and Exxon, here (other than the pussy ISP in this case), but try badmouthing the Chinese government in China.

            I'm not even saying the US is without blame -- just that saying "Only in America" is really very ignorant. I'm sure if I tried I could find examples of worse happening in Europe.
            • by PopeRatzo (965947) *
              Absolutely, the fundamentalist Islamic world is more obviously hostile to free speech and social openness. The only thing I can do about them is worry. That this kind of thing goes on at all in the USA is much more worrisome to me personally because we've at least got some history of progressiveness, so we don't have any excuses for letting small-minded people take over.

              More and more, I'm blaming the media, which has become so thoroughly owned by corporate interests that they've completely forsaken their
          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by operagost (62405)

            There didn't have to be, because a phoney-baloney catholic mayor who was banging some tootsie who wasn't his wife fell all over himself shutting down the art exhibit before the Christian Right could load their letter-writing campaign.
            So writing a letter is morally equivalent to murder and vandalism? You leftists are truly incredible!
        • by LGagnon (762015) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @09:03PM (#19702865)
          This isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of corporations, which really is only that bad in America.
        • by suv4x4 (956391)
          Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)

          To be honest, you don't account for some cultural differences. How about pissing on the American flag. That would get people in certain regions protesting for sure.

          Otherwise put, I'm not sure why it's shocking that corporations have more power than people. Well "people" (an entire nation) in US are more than the employees of
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Belacgod (1103921)
        The fact that other countries also suck doesn't make us suck less. Censorship of this nature is a negative-sum game, not a zero-sum one.
    • Well...if you look at it, a corporation is an entity that is run by the strength and resources of many, many people, so technically, a corporation DOES have more weight than people.

      Don't you agree?
    • by _Sprocket_ (42527)

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

      Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries! Unless, they're a King of Queen... sure. Or a totalitarian ruler / despot. OK. Only by Kings, Queens, and despots... and other various heads of state. Maybe the wealthy. So power is only used outside America by Kings, Queens, despots, var

    • In this on topic post (I'm still editing, but rushed to publish) I'm calling ExxonMobil devotees of Hecate, the queen of ghosts: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/06/necromancers.h tml [blogspot.com]. Will google be sent a take down notice? Let's wait and see.
  • Blame game. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:23PM (#19702013)
    Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?
    • by LehiNephi (695428)
      Chances are good that Exxon was responsible, but you're right--there's no proof at this point.

      Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the statement "Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year" is, at best, ingenuous. It's not as if Exxon is burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of gasoline/oil/natural gas per year--they're just supplying a commodity for which there is a large global demand. Blaming Exxon for global warming is worse than blaming gu
  • by rkcallaghan (858110) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:25PM (#19702023)
    Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

    (Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)

    ~Rebecca
    • by mdsolar (1045926) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:43PM (#19702117) Homepage Journal
      Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html [blogspot.com] and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.

      It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
      --
      Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
      • Re:They Have A Right (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mikelieman (35628) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @06:02PM (#19702209) Homepage
        These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.

        When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.

        It is very much like your drivers' license.

        You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.

        UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.

        Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.

        But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.

        • by mdsolar (1045926) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @06:09PM (#19702239) Homepage Journal
          But the poor things are only trying to do right by their shareholders. Shouldn't their high moral purpose trump mere individual rights?
          • by mikelieman (35628)
            Sarcasm aside, then what's the benefit to The People for permitting the existence of Corporate Artificial Legal Entities in the first place, if they don't FIRST benefit The People in tangible ways?

            Why bother having the Secretary of State even bother filing the paperwork?

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by heinousjay (683506)
              Apparently "The People" in your post only refers to people who don't own shares in corporations. Thanks for declaring me (and millions of others) non-entities.
              • by mikelieman (35628)
                You're not a non-entity. You are voluntarily participating in the operation of an Artificial Legal Entity, created by The People via the Secretary of State accepting the filing requesting existence.

                So, WHY would The People bother doing any of that? Last time I checked the Constitution of New York, and the Constitution of the United States, there was no requirement of any Governmental body to provide for the creation of Artificial Legal Entities.

                So, again, why would The People bother? It's not taxes. If
            • by mdsolar (1045926)
              In Corporate America the corporations say they benefit you!

              Which side do I put the sarcasm? Aside or beside ;-)
    • by Anonymous Coward
      See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment (as far as I can tell from the article). People often cannot separate the two, including the Yes Men.

      "Since parody is protected under US law"

      You see, they are in a business relationship with the hosting company. The hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever reason they see fit, including parody -- might not be smart but those are the facts. If the Yes Men put this out u
      • Anonymous Coward wrote:

        See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment ...

        If you ask me, using the threat of US Government action is just as much a violation as the government taking that action on their own accord.

        I wouldn't be one to claim that a "First Amendment" or "Illegal Censorship" issue takes place when legal, private action (such as a store refusing to stock your product) is the stick used. However, using the government itself as the stick (via a lawsuit), is very much the same. I will grant you however, that our current SCOTUS staff that ru

        • With all due respect, I somewhat disagree with your comment above. For Exxon to use the threat of a lawsuit to enact censorship is nowhere near equivalent to the U.S. government itself engaging in censorship.

          In an ideal world, and I admit that we are far from that ideal, then if someone was clearly covered under provisions to copyright law, such as by means of parody as in this case, then they would have little to fear from a lawsuit, because they could easily show that there is no violation under the l
  • Nice trollish headline. It's hardly a hack, rather a cease-and-desist from an 800 lb gorilla. In other words, not news for nerds.
  • by edwardpickman (965122) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:28PM (#19702047)
    Apparently you they are starting a program where you can bring grandma into a recycling plant and exchange her for fuel. It's called Blue Hair to Green Fuel. They are hoping to show their carbon neutral environmental side.
  • Legal matters (Score:2, Informative)

    by Xiroth (917768)
    Uh, usually I wouldn't note problems in the summary, but a missing quote mark at the start of the second last sentence makes it seem like Slashdot is the one claiming (as fact) that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year, and could easily be grounds for a libel suit. If an editor reads this comment, they may want to fix that.

    IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.
    • You are wrong, as it is a fact that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year. At least Nature says so! IANAL, and this is not legal advice, just my opinion. YMMV.
      • by Black-Man (198831)
        I read that article in the Post. Nowhere did it say Exxon causes 150K deaths per year. The article stated the WHO guess 150K deaths per year related to climate change. It would be correct to say Exxon CONTRIBUTES to 150K deaths per year, but then again, wouldn't the blame squarely fall on the folks driving the gas guzzling SUV's? Its not like Exxon is forcing us to buy the gas.

        • by mdsolar (1045926)
          You'd be right if ExxonMobil didn't act like a pusher http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion- c ould-be-paid-for-by.html [blogspot.com]. But, by doing more, much much more, to try to be sure we buy more and more oil, they take on responsibility as well.
          --
          Back to energy basics: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
          • by Black-Man (198831)
            "Act like a pusher"? I guess coal companies are pushers too? And what about GM, Ford, et. al., are they pushers too? What about you? You have a blog which people *need* a computer to read... a computer that sucks electricity to function, therefore you are a pusher too.

        • Re:Legal matters (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LehiNephi (695428) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @08:40PM (#19702739) Journal
          Bingo! It's important to keep in mind a few things on this very touchy subject:
          • Exxon (or whatever other oil company) are not the ones burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil/gasoline/natural gas every year.
          • Even if they were burning so much fossil fuel, Exxon only represents about 2% of the global oil production. They're the biggest private (i.e. not state-owned) oil company.
          • Who's burning all that gas? Well, as I drive to work (in my 35 MPG civic), I'm surrounded by people driving Tahoe's, F150's, Escalades, Explorers, Durangos, enormous Dodge Rams, Tundras, etc. By some divine decree, every building in Houston is kept at a temperature around 70F (which most people agree is too cool for the summer). That's who's causing the 150k deaths per year.
  • Now I thought this had potential as a nutritional supplement. Buried just like the ceramic engine....
    --
    Rent solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
  • If so, then we need to get Charlton Heston to yell how Vivoleum Green is People!
  • The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.

    I can imagine that Exxon's logo's are protected by trademark etc, but I think they still can be used for parody.
    However, I guess the initial site looked like a real Exxon site, and it wasn't apparent that it was a parody, looks like a legitimate reason for Exxon to complain.

    Still what "threats" did they make, I so no copy of an email or letter.

    After the Yes men removed the logo's and made it clear it was a parody, the ISP still blocked it.

    Has E
    • by it0 (567968)
      The yes Men site links to the following article [reuters.com]

      A small quote

      "Masquerading as officials from ExxonMobil and the U.S. National Petroleum Council, the two appeared before an oil industry audience and the buzz was that they would deliver long-awaited conclusions of a study commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman."

      Maquerading!=parody
      • Parody it is. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mdsolar (1045926)
        In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html [blogspot.com], I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many people wishing to be duped by it.
        --
        Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
    • by gsslay (807818)
      The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.

      Actually, that's not even a fact either. Well, not one anyone here can say. The article states; in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify..

      It's a fair bet it was Exxon, but only the ISP or Exxon can state that as a fact.

    • by canuck57 (662392) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @06:18PM (#19702285)

      Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...

      And how many lives have been saved by oil, might I suggest many of millions each year that rely on the fuel to transport food and drugs...

    • The reason the original site looked exactly like the Exxon site is because that is the group's schtick... and I have wondered before how long they could keep it up.

      These guys were written up in Harpers Monthly (Nov '01) for creating a WTO web-site, convincing organizers for an international conference (textile manufacturers?) that they were legitimate reps, and actually carrying through with a presentation at the conference. The presentation apparently included a large inflatable penis, and a gold jumpsuit
  • That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

    how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

    It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self

    • by tgatliff (311583)
      Keep in mind that groups like this try to make their way to the top of the news by making outlandish statements... The bolder the statements, the easier it is to get people to listen to them... Statements like these are nothing new...

      With that being said, on the political side, I clearly see a shift coming at some point... Meaning, more people are feeling that their lives are being actively manipulated by corporations, and manytimes they are probably right. Actually, the original 1960's "movement" was to
      • by tgatliff (311583)
        Also, please be kind on my personal perspective of the 1960's counterculture... I certainly am not looking to offend, and It is only my personal opinion. I certainly do not try to push myself as some sort of expert... :-)
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by canUbeleiveIT (787307)
      The "Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison" say so, so it must be true. Heaven knows that UW Madison isn't as left-wing, America-hating, and socialist as a university can get. Oh wait, maybe it is...

      Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.
    • The Darfur conflict is largely fueled by desertification brought on partly by climate change. Here are some 2005 estimates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12 4 85-2005Apr23.html [washingtonpost.com]. Things have not gotten any better since then, but the deaths have become harder to count.

      Their are deaths that can be even more directly tied to warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/doom.html [blogspot.com] as well. You should look into things a little more closely I think.
      --
      Get affordable solar power: http://mdsolar.bl [blogspot.com]
    • by Wister285 (185087)
      You bring up a good point and I would like to add to it. Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created. It's like trying to blame companies in the automotive industries for automobile accidents. It's not their fault that some people use their products improperly. If any of the oil companies scaled back production or stopped, a global depression would most likely be created and we would see the beginnings of a new Dark Age. If you don't like oil, move to a city and start
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by transami (202700)
        "Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created."

        That's completely false. ExxonMobil and the other Gas/Oil companies are directly in league with the automobile companies. Their chairmen serve on each other boards. They cooperate in the "buying-up" of alternative energy tech, and soaking up federal tax dollars via grant monies and tax breaks. Ie. They do everything they can to perpetuate demand for their product.

        Your rational on the use of illicit drugs is also mis-oriented. Al
    • by jollyreaper (513215) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @09:10PM (#19702899)

      That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

      how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

      It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
      You weren't modded down for disbelieving in global warming, you were modded down for being dickish about it. Global warming cult members? Fine, I'll give you that, only so long as you concede membership in the Flat Earth Society.

      You know why people get pissed off with positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit. This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk, only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything else where they don't.

      When it comes right down to it, we're not talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the corporate-sponsored .1% find themselves on the other side. Then you end up with conservative flacks taking up the banner of the corporations as if that's the patriotic thing to do.

      I have no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda. I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we should be able to do better than France."
  • by SEE (7681) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:48PM (#19702143) Homepage
    First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.

    Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".

    Third, there was no hacking involved.

    You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
    • by SEE (7681) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:53PM (#19702165) Homepage
      Yes, bad form replying to myself here. But!

      1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
      2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.

      Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?
      • Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?
        This isn't George Bluth Sr. we're talking about here. ;-)
    • by Khaed (544779)
      Yeah, but if they didn't use such an inflammatory title, we wouldn't get 200+ posts (pageviews, baby!) of people bitching about the loss of free speech, "only in America!", and due to the "climate change" part, we get to have YET ANOTHER global warming thread on /.!

      Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.

      I'm more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time of this
      • by mattOzan (165392)
        Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...)

        I'm on the Brute Squad...
  • nature of satire (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fermion (181285) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @06:18PM (#19702289) Homepage Journal
    I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. The problem with this assumption is that if a person, even a head of state, murders 100 people, or even destroys massive property, such in the case Exxon Valdez, that person can be significantly inconvenienced, while corporation can evade punishment for ever. And if the corporation is given the ultimate punishment, as in the case of Arthur Anderson, the political reprecusions tend to much more significant than when the equivalent human thug is punished by state sponsored killing.

    On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?

    Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.

    It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.

  • by jonwil (467024) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @09:04PM (#19702875)
    Firstly, if the ISP received a DMCA section 512 take down notice for the content, they should give the customer the full details of that notice.

    Secondly, if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed)
  • grass--greener (Score:3, Informative)

    by nanosquid (1074949) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @06:01AM (#19705579)
    At the end of July, Thing.net will terminate its contract with Broadview and move its operations to Germany, where internet
    expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,


    I think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark on your web site can make you subject to large fines.

    If you want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can host them on Flickr.
  • by rdean400 (322321) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @09:38AM (#19706905)
    The speed of the takedown has more to do with the power of lawyers than the power of corporations. If the ISP wants to take advantage of the "CYA" safe harbor afforded them by the DMCA and other similar laws, they have to comply with takedown notices without delay.

    If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...