People,

If you want more information and in-depth analysis of this situation, I encourage you to go to the DMCA thread in Deal Discussion. This thread has some very good information including website links of ChillingEffects.org, EFF, and anti-DMCA as well as email links to reporters at major news organizations (WSJ, Wired, News.com, etc.).

Make your voices heard!

Hmmm, zoid.com's Slashdot submission beat my Slashdot submission which was sent to Slashdot yesterday.

I hope this news will spread like wildfire throughout the country.

have these people even thought this through
in my opinion
they would be making more money if people knew about these bargains
black friday ads should be targeted to people who wwere not thinking about buying the product, but later find out about the low prices and decide to go buy them

if i didnt know of any of these deals
i would just stay at home all weekend and not bother going out to buy anything

competition?
there is always competition, thats what makes this a free market

they would draw more customers in if we were allowed to do these postings
suits them for being stupid and losing business

I don't think the U.S. could go after the FW-USA. If FW set up another company, say, in the cayman islands, the laws there (probably) do not have restrictions on such narrowly defined copyrighted content. The actions of the subsidiary in the foreign land are legal there. There are no laws being broken. Corporations do this all the time, and they set up dummy corporations or holding companies in tax friendly havens. It's perfectly legal.

DavidLikesToFish said:

<< my1bug said:

<< DMCA only applies to this country. Maybe FW should move the offending content to a data center at another country or to a foreign subsidiary. >>

And you honestly think that this would keep the US from going after FatWallet.com? Hardly.

Tim,

You are doing the right thing by pulling the offending material. You don't have the resources to fight these companies, but you DO have the resources to get the word out about them. Your site is far-reaching, and as the media gets a hold of this the companies will get their due bad press.

Continue to list which companies send you DMCA letters. I have already added four of them to my "Do Not Shop" list, and am notifying others. >>

The funny thing is that the majority of the Black Friday sales have been rather cruddy. I think they're afraid consumers will see this and not want to waste their time going, especially at 6am.

All the more reason to Buy Nothing on Buy Nothing Day. One day the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional, but until then we must fight it.

> Let's see who has the last laugh when Wall Street punishes these few arrogant companies.

You must be kidding. Right. They are the only retailers left. All other have been swallowed by them.

Just a thought....

What is anti DMCA Gestapo about slightly changing the price of something when posting info on this website?

For instance:
If Best Buy is advertising the a DVD at $12.99, why can't the price be posted here as $12.98 or $13.00???

This would now be just rumor/speculation, not fact.

Going even further, store names could be changed (to protect the guilty):
Worst Buy, Circuit Town, Office Min, GMart, Toys Are We, Farget, Comp America, Wal Fart, Homo Depot, Cold Gravy, The Crap, Lola Falana Republic, J. Blew, (John Wayne) Gacy's, Shroomingdale's, etc.

I am completely serious, BTW.

Here is how to get some of these retailers back...

A lot of these sales include prices after manufacture rebates. Bare in mind that many states, like the one I live in (Connecticut), have laws preventing retailers from advertising the net cost of an item after a rebate. Even if it says in small letters below the big shiney price (after $100 rebate), retailers can't do that. They must give the rebate at the time of purchase if they advertise like that. Check with your state's state library, or department of consumer protection to see if you have a law like this.

Here is the law from Connecticut:
(notice paragraph e)


Sec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost,"
or a rebate

It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:

(a) Advertise any merchandise or service as free by the use of the word
"free" or any other terms of similar import when the merchandise or service
is not, in fact, free (see § (d) below). Failure to disclose any and all
terms, conditions and obligations required of the consumer shall be a
violation of these regulations.

(b) Advertise the price of merchandise or service as a reduced or sale
price, or compare the price to a previous price unless the advertised price
is lower than the actual, bona fide price for which the merchandise or
service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser, for
a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement or as a
discount price, unless the advertised price is lower than. the price being
charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area;
provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is
less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge
after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this
subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the
advertiser's good faith expectations.

(c) Advertise the price of any merchandise as below cost, unless the price
is, in fact, below the cost for which the merchandise was purchased and
prepared for sale by the advertiser.

(d) Advertise merchandise or service as free or the price of merchandise or
a service as a discount, reduced, or sale price if receipt of such
merchandise or service is contingent upon the purchase of other merchandise
or service at a price which is higher than the actual, bona fide price at
which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular
basis by the advertiser for a reasonably substantial period of time prior
to the advertisement, or at a price which is substantially higher than the
price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in
the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the
advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good
faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there
is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall
be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.

(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the
net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of
the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at
the time of purchase of the advertised item. A retailer will not be
required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of
the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's
rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the
purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a
consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the
advertised item.

JDMnAR said:

<< Perhaps another slant on what these merchants may be concerned about:

If you are in need of a new TV and are ready to purchase that 27" Symphonics that WalMart is selling for $225 (price for illustration only) today, and you find out that if you wait a week or two you can get it for less than $150, chances are you are going to wait. They may be worried about delayed purchases (paying the sale price in two weeks instead of paying full price today)impacting the bottom line. Face it - everyone on here will delay their material gratification in order to minimize their financial outlay. Regardless, I still think it is assinine to invoke the DMCA to get these posts pulled! >>

What you don't understand is that most of these companies have "Price Guaranties" so that if you buy something for $200 and it goes on sale anytime within the next 30 days you can go and show your receipt to get your money back.