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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences activists 92

Posted by Hemos from the silencing-the-critics dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A parody site hosted on Thing.net upset DOW Chemical. DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten Verio, Thing.net's provider, into silencing the activists. Read press release for more details."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences activists More

DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences activists

Comments Filter:
  • Given what happened to FatWallet over the Black Tuesday adverts?

    What the hell is DOW claiming under the DMCA? The name? Give me a break. I hope there's such a HUGE stink over this that it permanently tarnishes DOW and Verio's reputations. Fscking corporate slimeballs.
    • From Dow's press release (at http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l [dowethics.com])
      Wow. dowethics. Given the circumstances, wouldn't that be an oxymoron?


      "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.

      We applaud the courage of Verio in taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the "artists, activists," and other blatantly non-commercial users of Thing.net. That message can be stated simply: Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously. Verio ensured that this message was understood by giving Thing.net a 60-day eviction notice following the network's restoration to the internet. This is the kind of justice which Dow can afford, and which we hope will become a model for the future of the internet."

      So, apparently DOW now would like to think of themselves as net critics and that since Thing.net is hosting sites that "serve no commercial purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society and corporate behaviour" then everything's ok and we should all just grab out ankles now..

      "Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously." Oh, ok. Since those using Thing.Net aren't a corporation with a bunch of high-priced lawyers they don't get to use free speech? Thanks a lot, assholes.

      This is the kind of justice which Dow can afford, and which we hope will become a model for the future of the internet." Translations: We sikked our hybrid lawyer-dogs on Verio and they put out quicker than a Freshman cheerleader at the Senior prom. We 0wnz them now. We will 0wnz j00 too.

      Oh yeah, I got first post.
      • Well, you just proved Dow's case. You were misled by the parody site, beliveing it to be an official statement of Dow Chemical. That was Dow's whole complaint in the first place.
        • Wow. That's pretty fucked up. Their site looks TOO much like Dow's.

          Dow may not have too hard a time proving their case. However, Thing.Net's owners *might* come out ahead on this. It's still a parody site -- even though there aren't any disclaimers stating as much. Certainly will be interesting to see where this goes...

          As for my getting roped in. All I can say is

          DOH!

          Thanks for pointing it out.

          Mental note: Consume at least TWO cups of cofee before posting comments to Slashdot in the morning...
          • It's still a parody site -- even though there aren't any disclaimers stating as much.

            Where's the line between parody and fraud? If I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I think kiddie porn is awesome!" that could reasonably be construed as parody. It's fairly absurd, so only the most gullible person would believe it. But if I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I vote Democrat!" that's not obviously parody. It sounds perfectly reasonable, and if one didn't know that Mimekiller is a staunch Dewey Socialist, one might not think twice about that statement.

            These guys could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by calling their site "Dowe Chemical" or something.
            • That's it. I'm SUING you.

              I'm going to hit /. with a DMCA and force them to give me your personal info.

              Not really, but I get your point.

            • "I'm Mimekiller and I think kiddie porn is awesome!"

              No, that would probably be slander/libel. Parody usually includes some aesthetic value.
              • Arg. You go this way, point go that way.

                My intent was to pick something so absurd that it would be obvious that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Pick your own example. "I'm Mimekiller and I'm a six-foot-tall invisible rabbit." Whatever.

                But the larger point still stands, I think. Does parody include some aesthetic value? If so, who identifies it as such? Because, to me, the stuff we're talking about this morning just isn't funny. It's absurd, but just barely so, and not at all funny. Does that mean it's not parody?
                • You might want to look up the word, satire. It is not always meant to be ha ha funny. Satire and parody are frequently political and preachy on porpose. The artists here are making a valid point about Dow Chemicals' irresponsibility, and callousness. There is nothing ha ha funny about it, nor is there supposed to be. The point of it was to make youi angry, or uneasy, and to educate. It works for that purpose. I would also like to point out that Dow could have avoided the very negative publicity they hope to avoid by ignoring such political message sites. Now more people than even before know that Dow is Union Carbide.
                  • The artists here are making a valid point about Dow Chemicals' irresponsibility, and callousness.

                    That has nothing to do with it. They've produced a web site, and are sending out press releases, in the name of Dow Chemical. Whatever your purpose, that's misrepresentation, defamation, and, at worst, fraud.

                    If they'd created a web site for a fictitious chemical company that bears a striking resemblance to Dow, everything would be cool. But when they used the Dow name, and logo, and represented themselves as Dow to the press, they crossed the line.

                    I would also like to point out that Dow could have avoided the very negative publicity they hope to avoid by ignoring such political message sites.

                    Let me say it again. These guys sent a press release out through the newswire and through regular channels claiming to be Dow. It doesn't matter why they did it. They misrepresented themselves, and that's against the law.
                    • If they'd created a web site for a fictitious chemical company that bears a striking resemblance to Dow, everything would be cool. But when they used the Dow name, and logo, and represented themselves as Dow to the press, they crossed the line.
                      Let's get something right here.
                      The problem is NOT that a single website by some artists got shut down, b'cause they might have infringed on copyrights, trademarks - you name it (and it's scary enough that parodies finally became a punishable offense).

                      The real problem is that for shutting down one single website, a whole network of sites, email addresses and the likes got bulldozed.

                      Let me give you an example: On the wall of your building you glue a poster with the DOW logo on it, some dead people from Bhopal and a snazzy quote from the fake press release. To make you get rid of the thing, DOW not even tries to sue you, but calls a nightwatchman of your landlord around midnight, gets no reaction, arrives with a couple of bulldozers, and as your building is surrounded by other building, they tear down a whole neighborhood to reach you and your defamatory ad.

                      If in the same process, DOW damages a major museum, destroys a couple of artworks and smashes the letterboxes of some innocent bystanders, you still would maintain that DOW didn't overreact?
            • "But if I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I vote Democrat!"..."

              Dead giveaway. Real Democrats (and us anti-Republicans) can tell the difference between an adjective and a noun and vote Democratic, not Democrat, whereas Republicans always use Democrat when they should say Democratic because they want to make it a dirty word the same way that they did with the word "liberal".

              • Real Democrats (and us anti-Republicans) can tell the difference between an adjective and a noun and vote Democratic, not Democrat

                Uh... seeing as how the only strictly grammatically correct word in that context would be an adverb-- "vote Democratically"-- we have to fall back to common idiom. When one is stumping, one says, "On November 4th, remember to vote McGuffin!" That's a noun, a proper noun to be precise. So saying "vote Democrat!" is the preferred idiom over "vote Democratic," unless you want to use the whole proper noun and say "vote Democratic Party!"

                In other words, you're wrong.
          • They used a program called Reamweaver [reamweaver.com] which is designed 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."

            There was a story about it on NPR [npr.org]'s "On the Media [wnyc.org]".
        • I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the parody site (after reading the whole thing), but I don't think it was out of line. If someone was misled by the parody site, then they're not careful readers. They have been trolled. They have lost. Have a nice day.

          I thought it was very very funny. In a doubleunplusgood funny sorta way. I've got to give credit to the writer. S/he has pegged the corporate doubletalk that makes up so much corporate communication.

          I do think the site should have a 'parody' tag down at the bottom.
          • I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the parody site (after reading the whole thing), but I don't think it was out of line. If someone was misled by the parody site, then they're not careful readers.

            Remember, this isn't just about the site. It's about the press release that these guys sent out with Dow's name all over it. There was absolutely nothing about this press release that even implied that it was a parody. It looked like a perfectly genuine, if insanely horrible, corporate statement. The only clue that it's not completely genuine is the fact that the press release refers to a past president of Dow as if he were the current president, and I only know that because I looked it up while fact-checking the release. The name "Panaline Boneril" sounds suspiciously like an anagram, but what the heck is "a plebeian or Lenin" supposed to mean?

            This is clearly defamation and fraud. Have a look. (This copy was emailed to the BBC's "Breakfast" show, and was included in the lawyer's correspondence to Verio.)

            From: Dow Chemical Corporation [SMTP:press@dow-chemical.com]
            Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:49 AM
            To: Breakfast R5L <breakfast@bbc.co.uk>
            Subject: DOW ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS POSITION

            December 3, 2002

            FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
            Contact: mailto:press@dow-chemical.com

            DOW ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS POSITION
            Company responds to activist concerns with concrete action points

            In response to growing public outrage over its handling of the Bhopal disaster's legacy, Dow Chemical (http://www.dow-chemical.com) has issued a statement explaining why it is unable to more actively address the problem.

            "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."

            On December 3, 1984, Union Carbide--now part of Dow--accidentally killed 5,000 residents of Bhopal, India, when its pesticide plant sprung a leak. It abandoned the plant without cleaning it up, and since then, an estimated 15,000 more people have died from complications, most resulting from chemicals released into the groundwater.

            Although legal investigations have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to publicly deny these findings. After the accident, Union Carbide compensated victims' families between US$300 and US$500 per victim.

            "We understand the anger and hurt," said Dow Spokesperson Bob Questra. "But Dow does not and cannot acknowledge responsibility. If we did, not only would we be required to expend many billions of dollars on cleanup and compensation--much worse, the public could then point to Dow as a precedent in other big cases. 'They took responsibility; why can't you?' Amoco, BP, Shell, and Exxon all have ongoing problems that would just get much worse. We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way."

            Shareholders reacted to the Dow statement with enthusiasm. "I'm happy that Dow is being clear about its aims," said Panaline Boneril, who owns 10,000 shares, "because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping the share price from expressing its full potential. Although a real solution is not immediately possible because of Dow's commitments to the larger industry issues, there is new hope in management's exceptional new clarity on the matter."

            "It's a slow process," said Questra. "We must learn bit by bit to meet this challenge head-on. For now, this means acknowledging that much as it pains us, our prime responsibilities are to the people who own Dow shares, and to the industry as a whole. We simply cannot do anything at this moment for the people of Bhopal."

            Dow Chemical is a chemical products and services company devoted to bringing its customers a wide range of chemicals. It furnishes solutions for the agriculture, electronics, manufacturing, and oil and gas industries, including well-known products like Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent Orange, as well as lesser-known brands like Inspire, Retain, Eliminator, Quash, and Woodstalk. For more on the Bhopal catastrophe, please visit Dow at http://www.dow-chemical.com/.

            # 30 #
            • This one is quite artfully done. But comeon, there are a couple of bits that are obviously spoofs:

              "because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping the share price from expressing its full potential."

              "We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way."

              "well-known products like Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent Orange"

              "Although legal investigations have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to publicly deny these findings."

              I assert that a careful reader would know this was a parody. Granted, a junior production assistant at the BBC might not get it, and some slashdotters may have been trolled. But we all know we hardly read the comments (much less the articles).

              Sadly, there are very few careful readers. I also concede that both of these articles should have the word parody on them. Since they did not, I think Dow has a case.

              Interestingly enough, the stunt may have worked. I've been involved with the environment, hazardous chemicals, and public safety for my entire career, and I've learned more about Bhopal in the last day than I have in the last 10 years.
      • Er... that's the PARODY site. :]
    • I hope there's such a HUGE stink over this that it permanently tarnishes DOW and Verio's reputations.
      You mean killing a website and its ISP does the job, whilst accidentally killing a city full of people failed to achieve that?
  • http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l

    They have that linked as "Dow's response" to the incident, apparently yet another parody site, but I was sure confused at first. I could see how someone could be misled to believe it was a real Dow site.

    These guys are pushing the line a little too far I think. The site looks a whole lot like an official site.
    • If you look at the WHOIS, dowethics.com is allegedly owned by somebody in Bhopal, India, the very same location where Dow's Union Carbide subsidiary was responsible for killing thousands in an escelation of multiple chemical plant disasters through the 70s and 80s.

  • IANAL (God I hate it when people start posts like that), but Wouldn't this be a great case to challenge the DMCA with? If all the facts are straight here then DOW Chemicals has enfringed on the first amendment rights of the person who wrote the parody. Bill of rights should proove that this law at least in this case should not be applied, but at best could make the DMCA unconstitutional.

    If that dosn't stir the pot, how about a lawsuit aganst Verio. The DMCA says that the ISP (in this case it should be Thing.Net must take down the material. DOW knew that Thing.Net would have complied only to allow the counter notice and reposting part of the DMCA to go into effect or just fired back with a "Liar, Liar, we have Lawyers too" letter since they specialize in activists sites. DOW chose wisely and picked the ISP's ISP and pretty much guaranteed that Thing.Net would have to bow to the pressure. And now Verio is cutting off Thing.Net in 60 days?!? The DMCA dosen't say anything about that! Get a lawyer and sue them to hell!

  • From the Site http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l [dowethics.com]

    Corporate Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms

    Now granted I didn't see the site (mirror anyone?) but what about Personal free speech? In this day and age of governemnt where there doesn't seem to be much for freedoms unless you invest a couple hundred thousand in your favorite politicians wallet. Why does DOW get free speech and they can threaten someone for exercising thiers?

    Was the company on Thing.net causing them harm, cutting into thier billions of dollars of profits for the year?

    • Re:Free Speech (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's the parody site. That's the whole problem Dow has with the parody site, is that it looks a whole lot like an official statement.
  • Before anyone stars foaming at the mouth about use of the Dow name (and even the look of their corporate page, which I didn't see the specific mention of) take a look at the following links:

    http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,9452, 00.html [business2.com]

    http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS .html [cornell.edu]

    http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/ [chillingeffects.org]

    http://overlawyered.com/topics/silicon.html [overlawyered.com]

  • DMCA? HUH? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Monday December 23, 2002 @09:13AM (#4944028)
    Can anybody dig up independent confirmation that this has anything at all to do with the DMCA? The RTMark press release mentions it in the context, "Dow was not amused, and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint to Verio, which immediately cut Thing.net off the internet for fifteen hours." But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    More importantly, the New York Times article on the subject (here [nytimes.com]), makes no reference at all to the DMCA, instead saying that "Dow's lawyers contacted Verio to complain that the site infringed on its trademarks, among other sins." If the DMCA were involved, I'm reasonably sure that the NYT article would mention it.

    If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that what probably happened is that Dow simply told Verio that they want the offending web site shut down, and possibly that the site was making unauthorized use of their trademarks or some such. Verio said to themselves, "On the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a good relationship with them." And they made a business decision.

    If that's what happened, I really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything illegal, or even unethical.

    (Incidentally, the NYT article also says, "When [Staehle] called Verio to ask why his entire network had been unplugged instead of the sole offending site, he said, a Verio lawyer told him that the Thing had violated its policies repeatedly and that its contract would be terminated."

    The article goes on: "Verio had shut down part of the Thing once before. In 1999 the online toy retailer eToys.com asked a California court to stop an online arts group from using its longtime Web address etoy.com. The Electronic Disturbance Theater, a Thing client, staged a virtual protest by overloading the retailer's site with traffic during the holiday season. Verio blocked access to one of the Thing's computers until the protest site's owners agreed to take it offline."

    Sounds like Thing.net isn't merely the mild-mannered parody site it claims to be. Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else altogether. Though they're not commenting, maybe Verio had some really good reasons to do what they did.)

    • Re:DMCA? HUH? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zapman ( 2662 )
      Verio [probably] said to themselves, "On the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a good relationship with them." And they made a business decision.

      If that's what happened, I really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything illegal, or even unethical.

      I won't go into the rest of your post, which I thought was well and good. However, while I see the logic of your 'wild assed guess', I disagree with your statement that it's 'not unethical'.

      Say you have a mindspring.com account. On your personal web page, you post that 'bill gates of borg' icon that he's reputed to hate so much. He causes a letter to be sent to mindspring, and your account is revoked, using the same logic you just called 'a business decision'.

      This is precisely the kind of thing that power leads to, if it's not curbed. Look at the nobles of the middle ages. Not held accountable, they could kill anyone they wished without repurcussions. This is just a modern day version of that.

      We must protect fredom of speech (obviously keeping in mind the limits WRT slander and libel). We must we must protect those liberties.

      Now, if thing.net violated libel and slander laws, they get what is coming to them. If they didn't, then what happened is unethical, and should be illegal.
      • Um. Verio is a private company. (Well, they're publicly traded, but they're owned by private individuals. You know what I mean.) They are entitled to do business with whomever they please.

        Nobody went to these guys and said, "Hey, you can't say that." (At least, not yet.) Rather, Verio said, "If you wanna do that, get your connectivity somewhere else."

        Verio is completely and totally free to do that. Just because these guys have a Constitutionally protected right to say (nearly) whatever they want doesn't mean that any particular provider of services is obligated to do business with them.

        Let me give you a real-world for-instance. About six years ago I was working as a pre-sales engineer for a fairly major computer company. (You've heard of them.) Somebody came to us and said, "I want to build a web site, and I need a very powerful server to do it." I, along with the sales rep, talked to him, and he said, after some probing, that he wanted to get into the "adult entertainment" business. Basically he wanted to build a porn site.

        That's entirely legal. Nothing wrong with it, as far as the law is concerned. But the sales rep I was working with said to me, after the meeting, that he simply didn't want to do business with this guy. He had an opinion on porn-- not necessarily the same as mine, but I respected it-- and he acted accordingly. We never called the guy back, and we never returned any of his subsequent calls.

        Life is full of little decisions like that. Ours was made on moral grounds; the sales rep I was working with had a moral objection to porn. Verio's decision was probably made purely on business grounds. Everybody-- individual and corporation alike-- is entitled to make those decisions for themselves.

        I stand by my statement that what Verio did was neither illegal, unethical, nor wrong.

        Say you have a mindspring.com account. On your personal web page, you post that 'bill gates of borg' icon that he's reputed to hate so much. He causes a letter to be sent to mindspring, and your account is revoked, using the same logic you just called 'a business decision'.

        Get an account with another service provider. If you can't find one that will give you an account, take out a bank loan and start your own. If you can't start your own, then get your message out through another medium. Public access television. Letters to the editor. Flyers under windshield wipers. Whatever.

        Freedom of speech is not being affected here in any way.

        Not held accountable, they could kill anyone they wished without repurcussions. This is just a modern day version of that.

        Exaggerate much? Nobody has killed anybody. Let's get this back down to earth, okay?
        • As an asside, 'private company' generally means a company like google, owned by a small group of indivduals. Verio is a public company. It is owned by it's shareholders.

          Your example from your pre-sales day is a totally different world. Verio had already decided to do business with thing.net, and had written a contract to do so. You and this 'someone' had NOT started doing business. You're totally free to choose who to do business with. However, once you start, it depends on the contract.

          I very strongly believe that if you say (like in a contract) that you're going to do something, you need to follow through with it.

          As for your 'get an account with another service provider', sure that's possible. However, if BillG was really after you, and if all the service providors followed your logic, then you would be silenced, in the medium of the internet.

          As for the reference to the middle ages, it's something called an analogy. A story used to illustrate a point. Exageration? Maybe. However the nobles DID work quite hard to destroy opposition. Why do you think the French Revolution was so keen to have a free press? The nobles silenced many a newspaper. Sure, they could have gone back to writing the things by hand (the equivelent of you're suggestion that they should change medium), but that would have been much less effecient.
          • As an asside, 'private company' generally means...

            Yeah, did you see the thing I wrote up there inside parentheses? Thanks.

            Verio had already decided to do business with thing.net, and had written a contract to do so.

            And, undoubtedly, that contract included plenty of clauses describing conditions under which either party could terminate.

            However, if BillG was really after you, and if all the service providors followed your logic, then you would be silenced, in the medium of the internet.

            So? Try as I might, I can't get a network TV show. I'm effectively silenced in the medium of network television. Is this a free speech issue? No, of course not.

            As for the reference to the middle ages, it's something called an analogy.

            Actually, it's something called hyperbole. And something called wildly inapplicable. And something called a waste of breath.
    • Thing.net is an ISP and not a parody site. The parody site was on a co-location server of one of our paying customers. Now, if Verio has a problem with the "Yes Men," they know damn well the IP address of their server and it would have be easy for them to block that address. Instead they choose to shut down the whole c-class net after leaving a message on our answering machine giving us 20 minutes to pull the plug on that machine.

      What did you say? "Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else?" Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300 paying customers for 16 hours? What about their rights?

      As to your question about whether the DMCA was invoked: yes it was. The Verio legal department told me, that they are "required to terminate our contract because of repeat infringements of the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act."

      There you go.

      http://www.thing.net
      http://thing.net/switch
      http://secure.thing.net/backbone

      • Instead they choose to shut down the whole c-class net after leaving a message on our answering machine giving us 20 minutes to pull the plug on that machine.

        According to Verio, Thing.net has been in violation of Verio's AUP for some time. Whether that's true or not is between you guys, but that's their opinion, and it explains why they shut you down.

        And, in all fairness, after they restored your connectivity and you asked for 3-4 months to transition to another provider, they did agree to give you 90 days before shutting you down for good, right? I'm not trying to say that they're right and you're wrong, but it's not quite accurate to imply that they're being completely unreasonable, either.

        Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300 paying customers for 16 hours?

        The difference between a denial of service attack against a company that some people find to be politically unacceptable and a company's cutting off a customer that they claim is in material breach of their AUP should be blindingly obvious. You can't really put the two situations on the same level.

        As to your question about whether the DMCA was invoked: yes it was.

        Yes, I heard. Early this morning I asked for independent confirmation of the DMCA part, and I got it from a couple of different sources, including from Dow's lawyers. I appreciate your mentioning it, though.
        • The difference between a denial of service attack against a company that some people find to be politically unacceptable and a company's cutting off a customer that they claim is in material breach of their AUP should be blindingly obvious. You can't really put the two situations on the same level.


          What denial of service attack? This is about a parody site criticizing a corporation, not about a denial of service attack. Dow's website was still up - it was parodied, not DOS'ed - but Verio responded by shutting down the Yes Men's parody site - *and* the sites of approximately 299 unrelated Thing clients. (Thing didn't do the parody, the Yes Men did.)

          • One of the reasons Verio cited for shutting down the entire Thing network was a denial of service attack launched some time ago against etoys.com or etoy.com or whichever it was. There was a domain name dispute at the time, and somebody on Thing's network decided to do something about it by DOS'ing the company's site right before a big holiday.

            Verio's position is that Thing's network got cut off because of a pattern of repeated AUP violations, not just one incident. Straw that broke the camel's back, sort of thing.
            • The article (I assume you are referring to the NYT one) didn't say that *Verio* cited that as a reason for shutting down Thing's network; the article's writer seems to have brought that up on his own. It seems clear that Verio's current actions have been provoked by the recent Dow parody, not an unrelated incident from 1999.


              Also, remember there are 2 shutdowns under discussion here: the impending termination of Thing's contract and the initial 16-hour shutdown of the *whole* Thing net after initial complaints about the Dow parody. The 16-hour shutdown doesn't seem to have to do with anything other than the Dow parody ... and that was what wolfgangsta was referring to when he said,

              What did you say? "Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else?" Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300 paying customers for 16 hours? What about their rights?

        • The difference between a denial of service attack against a company that some people find to be politically unacceptable and a company's cutting off a customer that they claim is in material breach of their AUP should be blindingly obvious. You can't really put the two situations on the same level.
          No, you can't put it on the same level. One is a targeted political action (and you can argue about the means).
          The second is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the rights of completely unrelated businesses. What problems do have Dow/Verio with an institution like PS1/MOMA?
          • One is a targeted political action (and you can argue about the means).

            Look, I don't mean to delve into hyperbole here, but blowing up a busload of school kids has also been referred to as "targeted political action." The ends do not justify the means. The fact that a group of people has a political problem with a company doesn't give them the right to cause them harm by maliciously disrupting their means of doing business.

            The second is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the rights of completely unrelated businesses.

            What rights? When you sign a contract with a service provider, you both agree to the terms. They agree to provide you with the service, and you agree not to violate their terms of use. If you violate their terms of use, you can and should be cut off, if the contract so stipulates, with no prior notice.

            This case has absolutely nothing to do with rights. It has to do with following the rules, and the consequences of not doing so. If you're going to break the rules, don't whine about the consequences.
            • What rights?
              Good question.
              So if you can explain to me what the ISP (as in thing.net) and PS1/MOMA (as in highbrow cultural institution) and artists web sites (as in artists web sites) and my email account (as inm y private mail) have to do with DOW feeling underappreciated in their careful handling of the Bhopal aftermath by somebody who just happens to rent his web space on the same subnetwork - well, I'll be listening happily.

              If somebody violates the terms of use of your friendly freemail provider Yahoo!, would you still argue that the most sensible action would be to shut down Yahoo!?
              You know how many kiddie porn get's delivered via AOL accounts? Let's shut them down if one of their tech people doesn't react immediately to a call by you in the middle of the night ...

  • As a few of you have already stated, I would like to know how they are using the DCMA on this. I mean yeah, I can see how DOW probably wouldn't like the parody, but if that's all it takes, the US Prison system is about to become the funniest place on earth with all the comedians that are about to be sent up. But as things are stated in this article, it sounds as if Things.net my have a case against Dow for the abuse of DCMA. The flip side of it is even if Dow is proven wrong, what are the odds that they will fix the situation, if history is any indication...
  • 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. We applaud the courage of Verio in taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the "artists, activists," and other blatantly non-commercial users of Thing.net. That message can be stated simply: Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously.
    So "anylsis of society" should not be protected under the 1st amendment according to Dow? And whats this about "non-commercial users". Apperently Dow chemical feels only those with billions of dollars should be allowed to speak their minds! Please tell me this PISSES YOU OFF!! of course this speech is blatantly non-commercial and unproductive analysis and critique of Dow FSCKED ideas of freedom, and therfore I should be shot and my corpse burned.
    • Read before posting. What you quoted is a "parody" site.

      See the problem?
      • oops.... luser award right here
        • oops.... luser award right here

          No, no! That's exactly the point. You're an otherwise entirely reasonable and sensible person, and yet at first glance you were fooled into believing that this page belonged to Dow, and served as an official corporate communication from them. There's no shame in being fooled here; the people who put up that page went to great lengths to make it look completely authentic, even going so far as to put a copyright notice on it.

          This is precisely the point. Given that the parody nature of this page isn't remotely obvious, it seems that Dow has a very strong case against these guys. For defamation, at the very least, and possibly even for fraudulent representation.
          • oops.... luser award right here

            No, no! That's exactly the point.
            rightly so; Parody, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, is:
            (Greek par"a song sung alongside another"), in literature, a form of satirical criticism or comic mockery that imitates the style and manner of a particular writer or school of writers ...

            Given that the parody nature of this page isn't remotely obvious
            If we really are ready to believe what the fake DOW press releases are telling us, it's not just DOW having a problem here. It's probably more a serious case of collective nuttery.

            In logos we trust!
  • I hope the parody site (whoever owns dowethics) hasn't made a stoopid mistake with the copyright notice at the bottom. Unless I'm wrong, they are not allowed to claim copyright by "The Dow Company" unless they own a registered trademark to that name (unlikely), and if they've falsely attributed the copyright they could lose their copyright to their parody page and be subject to hefty fines for their false claims.

    Losing copyright to the page would make defense of the page (as a parody) more difficult in several ways...

    Even if I was a lawyer, you would be foolish to believe I'm licensed to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you currently reside.

  • http://www.dowethics.com/r/Homepage/index.html [dowethics.com]

    Did you know?
    Dow is responsible for the birth of the modern environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about the side-effects of a Dow product, DDT, on North American bird populations. Her work created a groundswell of concern, sparking the birth of many of today's environmental action groups. Another example of Dow's commitment to Living. Improved daily.
  • This is a perfect example of a greedy corporation squashing free speech in the name of its lord and savior, the almighty dollar. The artists, called the Yes Men, hosted by thing.net were making a valid point with their biting satire, and adding a "this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract from the icky feeling their satire was intended to evoke. If they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the test case to overturn the DMCA. It is more likely, unfortunately, that Thing.net will die, and this Slapp will be successful. That will be a tragedy. I would love to republish the materials in question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men agree.
    • This is a perfect example of a greedy corporation squashing free speech in the name of its lord and savior, the almighty dollar.

      Actually, it appears to be a perfect example of misguided souls, despite their good intentions, making unauthorized use of a company's legally protected trademarks, and getting their pee pee's smacked because of it.

      The artists, called the Yes Men, hosted by thing.net were making a valid point with their biting satire, and adding a "this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract from the icky feeling their satire was intended to evoke.

      Valid point or not, it is not okay to use somebody else's trademarks without their permission. The message would have been just as clear without the malicious intent to deceive.

      If they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the test case to overturn the DMCA.

      The DMCA claim is only one part of the complaint against these guys. The complaint also cites the Anti-cybersquatting Protection Act ("dow-chemical.com") and the Lanham Act (illegal use of trademarks). Also, these guys issued a false press release in Dow's name intended to defame Dow publicly. But most importantly, everything these guys did, practically, was in violation of Verio's AUP.

      I would love to republish the materials in question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men agree.

      Go right ahead. Wonderful thing about freedom of speech. Even if you're kicked off of one podium, you can always climb onto another.
      • Actually, it appears to be a perfect example of misguided souls, despite their good intentions, making unauthorized use of a company's legally protected trademarks, and getting their pee pee's smacked because of it.
        It's more like that an important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny faces. And as they couldn't reach out fast enough, they decided neither to sue the Yes Men nor asked their ISP thing.net for cooperation, but colluded with Verio to shut down the whole service of thing.net, maybe as some kind of a punitive measure.

        So DOW smacked the pee pee's of completely unrelated organisations, institutions and people like thing.net (as in carrier), PS1/MOMA (as in high brow museum), ARTFORUM (as in magazine), as well as several hundred users who were not even able to check their emails (not speaking about their web sites).

        Bluntly, this has been a legal Denial of Service attack against against thing.net with the malicious intent to disrupt their business.
        • It's more like that an important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny faces.

          Funny faces? They sent out a press release with Dow's name on it, filled with false information and quotes, solely intended to defame Dow. It had nothing to do with raising awareness, it had nothing to do with calling attention. It was meant only to confuse people and to hurt Dow.

          There's a line. They crossed it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly. They are suffering the consequences.

          Thing.net could have avoided this problem by taking care of their own problems. Since they didn't do so, when Dow brought the most recent offense to Verio's attention, Verio decided to act according to their policies.
          • There's a line. They crossed it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly. They are suffering the consequences.
            Uhm, who's suffering here?
            The consequences for the Yes Men: a widely noticed activity, mirror sites all over the world, some media echo.
            Quite a success.

            The consequences for DOW: some more people now remember Bhopal - and make the connection to DOW (instead of just remembering the long gone Union Carbide).
            Not really a success.

            The consequences for the ISP: interrupted service, legal hazzles ...
            The consequences for clients of ISP: interrupted service, bouncing email ...
            A disaster.

            Thing.net could have avoided this problem by taking care of their own problems.
            What own problems? Please share your knowledge.
  • Fuck 'em. If they can't play by reasonable rules of good behavior, I have no sympathy when they end up being smacked down for (in this case) fraudulent misrepresentation of their opponents.

  • Time to boycott Verio? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Monday December 23, 2002 @12:34PM (#4945323) Journal
    Are there other providers who will not take action against a hosted site unless pushed by a court order?

    I know newsguy.com is one such provider.

    I have a site with Verio. If I know of another site with php3/4, perl and mysql, and which will not take any action without a court order, I'm there and Verio is out another customer.
  • As of 12:30 pm EST the offending site http://Dow-Chemical.com [dow-chemical.com] now points to http://www.dow.com/homepage/index.html [dow.com] anyway. So apparently there is nothing to worry about. Satiric criticism is erased by domain hijacking and no-one has to be the wiser.
  • > DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten Verio,

    No. Dow is using copyright law to threaten Verio. The DMCA is forcing them to give Verio an opportunity to remove the putatively infringing material and thereby avoid any penalties. In the absence of the DMCA Dow could sue and possibly collect damages even if Verio took the material down as soon as they were notified. This would mean, of course, that no ISP would ever let anyone put any parodies up at all.
    • so you think the DMCA is there to protect ISPs and the people creating parodies???

      Quite entertaining idea. Ever heard of somebody successfully suing the USPS for transporting Anthrax letters and the Unabombers mail? Ryder for renting a van to T.McVeigh?

      Unfortunately, the idea of of the carrier not being allowed to be interested in what he's carrying got lost somewhere in the last couple of years.
  • How does the DMCA apply here? This is a parody site, no one's using anything computer-related to break into Dow's intellectual property. What a travesty of justice. I hope Thing.net will pursue this idiocy.

    The DMCA is just pure corporate evil.
  • Verio's been hosting spammers and spamvertized web sites for so bloody long that it's going to take a miracle to un-tarnish their rep in the eyes of Lord only knows how many SysAdmins (myself included!)

    This [spamhaus.org] is just a small sample. No fewer than 43 known (and sometimes infamous) spammers hosted by Verio. Need I say more?

  • Should probably read: DOW threatens Verio, Verio silences ISP of activists.

    Instead of shutting down a single activist site (which would have been bad enough), they killed a whole network in some kind of a legal Denial of Service attack.

    In this process, they disturbed the businesses of various clients of thing.net, destroyed some digital artworks and disabled for several hours my private email account (naughty, naughty; but should I sue DOW and Verio for my bounced love mails?).

    Better be aware: your ISP could be the next target of some corporate DoS attack. So you better open up an AOL account, just in case ...

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close