Posted by Roblimo on Tuesday
January 25, @08:25PM from the nice-to-see-the-good-guys-win
dept. artiste
writes "The NY Times tech section
is reporting
that eToys is dropping the
suit against the artists group, etoy." (Free reg. required to read).
eToys "dropped"
the suit earlier, but not
all the way. This time it looks like they've really and truly surrendered.
They're even paying etoy's legal bills. Click Below to read etoy's
e-mailed press release.
(SANTA MONICA / ZUERICH / NEW YORK)
THE LAWSUIT AGAINST etoy IS DROPPED!
according to the etoy.LAWYERS chris truax in san
diego and peter e. wild in zurich eToys Inc. gave up its naive fight against
the famous international art group etoy this tuesday after a long and exhausting
dispute about the terms and conditions of this settlement.
on monday, january 24, 2000, the TOYWAR.crisis-control-board,
1345 special TOYWAR.agents and media warriors triggered another firestorm
: within a few hours many hundred EMAIL-TOY-BOMBS exploded in the brains
of customers, e-shoppers, brokers and nervous business men all over the
world.
no one got hurt - but the message is placed and
the eToys share value sunk below its initial price of $20: value on tuesday
/ 11.12 AM: $19.0625 per share unit.
one of the targets of the violence-free toy-bombing
was the eToys HQ in santa monica .. eToys felt that it is now time to drop
this lawsuit and to accept all the demands the etoy.CORPORATION submitted.
IT WAS A PLEASURE TO DO BUSINESS WITH ONE OF THE
BIGGEST E-COMMERCE GIANTS IN THE WORLD: F*U*C*K*I*N*G* INTENSE & REALLY
EXPENSIVE BUT A KICK FOR ALL OF US! WE ALL LEARNED A LOT.
WE THANK ALL THE BRAVE AGENTS WHO LINED UP BEHIND
US TO PROTECT THE ART BRAND "etoy" & FREEDOM ON THE NET!
all agents on TOYWAR.com get rewarded with etoy.SHARES
and special compensations.
TOYWAR.heros will be awarded with etoy.MEDALS
and TOYWAR.titles after champagne and drugs left the bodies of the TOYWAR.crisis-control-
board-members.
THIS IS A GREAT MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF INTERNET
ART!
for one time we avoid long statements and launch
the party rockets...
signed and verified: the etoy.BOARD
(MORE INFORMATION SOON!)
etoy.CRISIS-PRESS-OFFICE: 0041 1 242 40 81
etoy.PRESS-FTP: ftp://212.71.98.169/pub
____________________
if you joined this community because of the lawsuit....you
can now unsubscribe@toybomb.com without any negative feelings! good bye
& it was nice to meet you. otherwise stay tuned and wait for even more
exciting media viruses and twisted business plans from the etoy.LABORATORIES.
we are not done yet.
LAST MESSAGE TO the eToys LEGAL-DEPT:
THANK YOU FOR HELPING US GROW!
Don't
have an account yet? Go Create One.
A user account will allow you to customize all these nutty
little boxes, tailor the stories you see, as well as remember your
comment viewing preferences.
The
Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
( Beta is only a state of mind
)
Now.. (Score:4, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, @10:09PM EST (#1)
Now, Slashdot needs another company to bash. Who's
next in the queue?
simple business decision?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @03:34AM EST (#120)
Has anyone been thinking that this whole ordeal was
going to be forgotten after the holidays anyway? There's no real incentive
for etoys.com to persue etoy.com if it's not during a peak period. Call
it a conspiracy theory, but etoys probably never expected to take this
the whole way.
Anyone think that etoy.com had a predisposition in this whole case?
i.e. they know what was going to happen and maybe got a kick back from
etoys? Hmmmm....
Without written statement of
indemnity... (Score:2, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, @10:48PM EST (#42)
and written, signed by etoys.com trademark owners
that they shall forever hold etoy.com harmless, etc. this remains, a temporary
situation and can still reverse at any time. What proof is there otherwise?
Words over a phone? Feh.
But will they do it again?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, @11:40PM EST (#78)
Anyone want to bet this is not permanent? I won't
be surprised if etoys once again sues etoy when next Christmas comes around
just to make sure nobody mistakes their site during their busy time of
the year. This could be a yearly event.
IMHO, I think etoy should countersue etoys just to get something back
for all the trouble etoys has caused them. That might get the message out
to all the other sue-happy companies out there that they can't use the
courts as their tax funded bludgeon.
Re:Bashing Companies? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @07:50AM EST (#128)
Nate uses his .sig to advertise his company. I use
this post to point out that much cheaper domain registration can be achieved
at http://www.joker.com.
I use this space to point out that this price from
joker.com only applies if you provide your own primary and secondary DNS.
If you happen to have your own DNS I say by all means use joker.com to
register your domains, that is what I would do.
I say we go after the people who are harassing Jon
Johansen in Norway. These include the state attorney (Ms Inger Marie Sunde;
relevent
post) and the law firm which pulled
the strings
(relevent
post). These people need to be "informed" of the error of their way..
or crusified if they will not reform. It would be especially helpful if
people would track down the law firm's customers, so we can complain to
them.
[switching back to topic of this article] I'll be curious to see the
real analysis of the etoy thing. I'd love to think that we really hurt
their stock price.
Also, I should say that I really liked the style of the etoy press release.
These guys are pretty good.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of
moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Re:I have one to trash..
(Score:1)
by GossG(ggoss@direct.ca)
on Wednesday January 26, @02:51AM EST (#116)
(User
Info)
] I'll be curious to see the real analysis of
the etoy thing. I'd love to think that we really hurt their stock price.
The discussion I saw on it claimed that the price was largely related
to a combination of volume problems over christmas, and a freeing of locked-in
shares from the IPO (or something like that) that were finally allowed
to be sold by people who'd held them for a long time. I forget where I
read the discussions about etoys' post-christmas dive into the share-price
dumpster, but they rated the feud with etoy to be a distant third to these
two factors.
Actually, and this is so totally off topic I don't
know why I'm posting this here, is that if you get enough positive karma,
your posts automagically show up as a +2 by default.
Go figure.
Now I have this little button down below that allows me to set it to
+1 instead of +2; normally I select that when I submit a random bit of
blathering like this. But I forgot to moderate myself down when I posted
the above.
great american Sashdot-out?
(Score:1)
by KahunaBurger on Wednesday January 26, @02:09PM EST (#140)
(User
Info)
I don't think one day counts as a boycott. Its more
like the annual Smoke-out or Peta's Meat-out day. Or maybe the "buy nothing"
day that people were trying to get going the day after thanksgiving.
Yeah, definitly not a boyctt. call it a protest day. *end nitpick*
Re:Slashdot (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @04:56AM EST (#123)
This is stupidity.
1) do you know how easy it is to build a slashdot like site?
2) there are already plenty of alternatives
3) give me an articulated argument why I should boycott slashdot and
I will
I do realize that it is hypocritical to be a center of open source information,
yet not practice it -- but give them a break. I'm sure they are busy working
on many things and will release their code soon enough.
Here's a new target... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:34AM EST (#101)
How about bashing fast food restaurants for employing
so many Slashdotters in eight-hour-a-day burger-flipping jobs that give
them spending money to buy computers (but not enough to move out of their
parents' basement) to use for whining about companies?
Re:. . . (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, @11:31PM EST (#73)
There's no mistaking an etoy.STATEMENT for a statement
from anyone else. I had to think for a while about what it reminded me
of, and the closest I could think of was taking names like "eToys" or "JavaScript"
to their logical conclusions. I have to say that in ordinary English, I
can't stand capitalization in the middle of the word and view it as the
corporate takeover of the English language. But the etoy.STYLE is so outlandish
I'm just caught off guard. I suppose that's their intent; I really enjoy
it.
Re:Etoys (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @11:07PM EST (#148)
I has a wonderful experience with Etoys this past
December. We ordered over 1,000 dollars worth of toys and they arrived
neatly packed the next days just in for Christmas.
Re:Etoys (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @11:09PM EST (#149)
I had a wonderful experience with Etoys this past
December. We ordered over 1,000 dollars worth of toys and they arrived
neatly packed the next day just in for Christmas.
artiste writes "The NY Times tech section is reporting
that eToys is dropping the suit against the artists group, etoy." (Free
reg. required to read). eToy "dropped" the suit earlier, but not all the
way. This time it looks like they've really and truly surrendered. They're
even paying etoy's legal bills. Click Below to read etoy's e-mailed press
release.
You mean eToys dropped the suit earlier. Probably obvious, but
the subtle difference between "eToy" and "eToys" is what started the suit
anyway.
Yeah, a little company won a battle against one company.
But in the fact if the DVD/CCA issues going on, I see no reason to celebrate.
/p
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
Catch your very own geek - http://www.singlegeek.com
Bummer (Score:3, Insightful)
by Duxup(pointandlaugh@hotmail.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:20PM EST (#17)
(User
Info) http://8421.net/
If you’re waiting for a perfect world with no questionable
lawsuits, you won't ever be celebrating. I enjoy it for what it is. *raise
glass and take a drink*
Re:sigh (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, @11:21PM EST (#63)
Don't hold your breath. Once this DeCSS stuff clears up, I'm going
to sue Linus over his use of the phrase "world domination" which I patented
back in 1991
A truly great thing. (Score:2,
Insightful)
by davidu(davidu@angrywhitemale.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:15PM EST (#8)
(User
Info) http://www.mp3.com
Lets hope that the DVD-CCA lawsuit goes away like
this one did -- down the drain! With all the support Etoy had and the support
DeCSS has, it should be no problem to overcome corporate greed.
Does anyone wonder what would happen if there were a judge who was actually
net-competant?
Would these cases take this long?
Has anyone ever had a great judge who understood computers and the net?
-Davidu
Check it out...the revolution
is happening.
Re:A truly great thing. (Score:1)
by forehead(forehead2k@yahoo.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:27PM EST (#23)
(User
Info)
I agree with the sentiment. However, the MPAA has
far deeper pockets (and far thicker skulls) than eToys. I suspect we have
a hell of a lot of work ahead.
-- It occurred to me lately that nothing has occurred to me lately.
Re:A truly great thing. (Score:1)
by Trejus on Tuesday January 25, @10:31PM EST (#27)
(User
Info)
I don't think that there are is any parelell between
the etoys law suit and the DVD-CCA one. In fact the only similarity is
that a big guy is trying to smash the little guy. For one, the DVD suit
is due to a conglomerate out to keep people from distributing their merchandise
for free, instead of paying the companies for it. Also, if the decryptons
codes are readily availible, this companies also lose thier power over
the market. The only case close to this one is the RIAA vs MP3 and niether
of these are going to go away anytime soon.
-- Trejus (The Great Roman Emperor)
In fact the only similarity is that a big guy
is trying to smash the little guy.
Hehe, that is the similarity. You are completely correct about the RIAA
vs. MP3.com suit but I left that out of my post. I knew someone else would
mention it.
-Davidu
Check it out...the revolution
is happening.
Does anyone wonder what would happen if there
were a judge who was actually net-competant?
how about other entities?
for example, I applied for that oh-so-cheesy linux logo credit card.
[yeah, I'm a sucker for penguins]. I used my brand new PO box as my mailing
address - I'm trying to cut down on the # of places that have my real physical
addr - right to privacy and all..
so anyway, I get this letter in my PO box asking for verification of
my addr (since my credit history only lists my street addr). I call the
issuing bank up and read the case # (and other special #'s that were on
that letter I received) to the bank guy - as proof that I did in fact get
the letter and I am who I say I am. so even though I can recite the special
check codes I listed on the credit app, etc, - still no dice - the bank
guy insists on getting a copy of a utility bill or similar that
goes to this PO box. (ok - how many utility bills do YOU have that go to
your PO box?)
I then ask the bank guy (who, whether he realizes it or not, is representing
linux via the linux credit card) if he has net access (since I remember
that my PO box is listed as my whois record address. and of course
he's clueless about that whole whois thing. I guess I should have
expected as such ;-(
so anyway, I guess us neticens who spend way too much time online assume
that many other folks are net.versant. and of course, its still only like
5-10% of the US pop who's really online.
well - the banks - I can live with them as they are. it was a pain to
resubmit my credit app all over again (using my actual street addr. this
time) but I did it and now have that shiny penguin in my pocket [vbg].
but when it comes to things legal, I DO expect our judges
and lawyers to be net.versant (when arguing and deciding things in that
domain). and of course they're not aware of technology and this field -
so things like the DVD/decss crap drags on and on, usually heading in the
wrong direction. and spam laws are still slow to be put on the books. oh,
and now that guy from Norway is harassed by his gov't who clearly seems
clueless on the actual subject at hand.
Judges who get it (Score:2,
Interesting)
by Jim Tyre(j(dot)s(dot)tyre(at)cyberpass(dot)net) on
Wednesday January 26, @02:21AM EST (#113)
(User
Info) http://censorware.org
Has anyone ever had a great judge who understood computers and the
net? Partial list:
Three Judge District Court Panel in CDA I, and, to a lesser extent,
The Nine in that same case;
District Court Judge in CDA II;
District Court Judge and two of three Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Judges in Bernstein;
Ninth Circuit panel ruling morphed child porn provisions unconstitutional;
Various federal District Court and Appellate Judges in Blumenthal
v. AOL and Zeran v. AOL holding that service providers are not
liable for (alleged) libel of content provider;
District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, in Virginia, for holding that
Loudoun County's mandatory censorware policy in the public library was
unconstitutional;
Any number of judges, state and federal, who have held that the mere
fact that a web site can be accessed in the State of the Plaintiff does
not mean that the Defendant automatically can be sued in that State.
There are any number of other examples -- and IAAL -- but the basic
points are these:
Like anything else in the law, it takes time for the the law, and the
Judges who rule on it, to catch up;
Despite that, and not ignoring the "bad" cases, there are plenty of
good rulings, plenty of good judges already out there, and as more do "get
it", the numbers figure to grow.
Re:A truly great thing.
(Score:1)
by Rakarra(rakNarraO@SpacbPellA.Mnet)
on Wednesday January 26, @08:06PM EST (#145)
(User
Info)
With all the support Etoy had and the support
DeCSS has, it should be no problem to overcome corporate greed.
The problem is that these cases aren't similar. The eToys vs etoy
case was extremely clear-cut: the motivations were very clear, and etoy
was very very clearly in the legal clear (and still look at all the crap
they had to go through). The DVD defendants don't have that luxury: whether
you like it or not, the issues surrounding the DVD case are legally murky.
Take the NOSPAM out of my address if you're responding by mail..
Re:Comparison (Score:1)
by KegDude(KegDude@wildmail.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:34PM EST (#32)
(User
Info)
"We survived their brute force. It's minds over
money."
Actually, it's probably the money that made eToys change their
mind. Their stock
chart shows a pretty good slide down, from the 60's and 70's to the
20's, in the last couple of months. Ouch.
No better time to invest. I just sunk $500 into them
while their stock's cheap. (Disclaimer: I am not a stock advisor.)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?" "'Quined' quined" quines "quined."
Re:Comparison (Score:1)
by soygreen on Tuesday January 25, @10:58PM EST (#46)
(User
Info)
You actually think the ETYS stock price is affected
by propaganda from the likes of RTMARK? Think again. Read the comments
from stock analysts on ETYS. There is no relationship.
Wow, something finally goes right
(Score:5, Insightful)
by jfunk(jfunk@roadrunner.nf.net)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:17PM EST (#12)
(User
Info) http://exnihilo.dhs.org
After reading about certain events in the ongoing
DVD scuffle over the past while, we now have something to be happy about.
But...
Etoy simply backed down, rather than have a court rule on it. I was
kind of hoping (like many others) that this would set a precendent to avoid
this kind of crap in the future.
I hope something like this doesn't happen again, or the accused would
be back to square one. Another thing to note is that Etoy fought *hard*
to retain their rights, much harder than most people would. I have incredible
respect for those guys. I hope the victims of any future abuse follow their
example.
Re:Wow, something finally goes
right (Score:2, Insightful)
by DMuse on Tuesday January 25, @11:07PM EST (#52)
(User
Info)
I was kind of hoping (like many others) that this
would set a precendent to avoid this kind of crap in the future
Oh come on now, Remember what drives the corporate world. Stock Price
Occasionally one attempts to increase stock price through law suit. In
this case the law suit resulted in the stock
price falling 75% to below it's IPO value. What better precedent could
you ask for. What board of directors would tolerate the stock price plummeting.
I'm surprised heads haven't yet rolled at eToys.
Re:Wow, something finally goes
right (Score:0, Troll)
by soygreen on Tuesday January 25, @11:09PM EST (#55)
(User
Info)
Another thing to note is that Etoy fought *hard*
to retain their rights, much harder than most people would. I have incredible
respect for those guys.
What was it that won your respect? Was it when they put pictures of
toys and links to fake stock information on their front page in order to
confuse people who got there by accident? Was it their use of "the fucking
flash plug-in"? Or was it when they put the word "Playboy" in their META
tags? Truly a bunch of modern day Renoirs here.
Re:Wow, something finally goes
right (Score:2)
by jfunk(jfunk@roadrunner.nf.net)
on Wednesday January 26, @12:14AM EST (#89)
(User
Info) http://exnihilo.dhs.org
They turned down a lot of money.
They are artists. They expressed themselves.
You appear to be offended by offensive language. I am not. It's expression
and I'm going to defend their right to do it.
I'm sorry, but your Tipper Gore attitude is not going to win me over,
especially since I'm a musician.
Re:Wow, something finally goes
right (Score:1)
by Yardley on Wednesday January 26, @08:34AM EST (#130)
(User
Info)
I'm with you, Jimmie Funk. The courts and coporations
seem not to realize that simply not understanding some else's form of expression
does not allow suppression of that expression. Whether interpreting how
an encryption scheme works, or using a domain name similar to that of a
corporate entity (in this case, a domain name secured well before the corporation
came into existence), the right to voice one's self is an inalienable right.
The Constituion spells it out, but the people themselves know they should
have this right to speak and express, whether written in stone or screamed
into the wind.
One's and zero's -- perhaps streamlined, but the electrons flow for
one reason only: the sharing of information, the expression of a person's
view into the world...
Re:Wow, something finally goes
right (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:17AM EST (#92)
The fact they stuck with it did is what I respect.
Actually, I don't care for their art, but I do care for their ability to
offend and annoy without the interference of a bunch of corporate visigoths.
I cheerfully accept being offended and scoured by vulgarity if that means
we all can express ourselves without being e-Mugged. Gregm
um... E-toys pushed for the injunction in a case
it would likely lose right before Christmas, then drops the case graciously
afterwards?
Though I'm sure etoy is happy to have their domain back, I'm not so
sure they appreciate being hassled so much just to clear up the holiday
roadmap.
And I doubt if etoys is really backing down in the face of opposition
-- it's a winwin situation for them. If they got away with it, no more
nasty anti-corporate site one letter away. And even if not, they still
got a clear christmas.
A Victory (Score:2, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, @10:17PM EST (#13)
Now our favorite socialist art group haswon against
the evil capitalists we can go out and press for victory in the realms
of DeCSS and others!!! We need to get our GNU/GPL message and socialist
pamphlets out!!!
Is this a real press release?
Last time i checked
IT WAS A PLEASURE TO DO BUSINESS WITH ONE OF THE BIGGEST E-COMMERCE
GIANTS IN THE WORLD: F*U*C*K*I*N*G* INTENSE & REALLY EXPENSIVE BUT
A KICK FOR ALL OF US! WE ALL LEARNED A LOT.
was not common in an offical press release.
"Its not a bug...just think of it as a new undocumented feature" - M$
TechSupport
Re:Um..is this for real?
(Score:0, Troll)
by Foogle. on Tuesday January 25, @11:39PM EST (#76)
(User
Info)
Stupid Stupid Slashdotter!! I am a karma-whore! KNOW
THY ENEMY, FOR HE IS THE FOOGLE! HAHA, You thought I actually cared!!?!
Blah Blah Blah Yackity Schmackity Blah Blah Moo
There was also a link to a new york times article
at the top of the slashdot article. (I think the reason you often see the
second paragraph repeating the first on slashdot is that readers sometimes
forget what the first paragraph said, and start reading the second.)
Good news (Score:1)
by =w= on Tuesday January 25, @10:19PM EST (#15)
(User Info)
Good news, but how much longer until another stupid
lawsuit comes up? Honestly not all lawyers/business people will be able
to learn their leason from Etoy/Etoys.
Makes you wonder (Score:1)
by SuperBeast on Tuesday January 25, @10:21PM EST (#18)
(User
Info)
Gee, it seems that this lawsuit lasted just about
as long as the holiday shopping season. Could it be that etoys filed suit
to keep holiday shoppers from wandering onto etoy's site and then going
to toysrus.com because they couldn't find etoys? And now the case has been
dropped, if etoys was really in this for copyright infringement wouldn't
they have pressed the case further?
--- I think, therefore I exist, anything outside of that is uncertain.
Expensive... (Score:1)
by Ranger Nik(nik@spam.proof.nanospace.com)
on Wednesday January 26, @03:44AM EST (#121)
(User
Info)
if you know what lawyers cost, it would seem excessively
expensive on etoyS part to do it just for the shopping season...
i mean, if a lot depended on it, yes, but if it is just some people
who can't type URLs but know how to complain... well... BAD INVESTMENT.
For the last couple weeks, I've been taking part
in etoy's "game" over at toywar.com, and while surely its effect isn't
solely responsible for the settlement, I'm wonder what sort of part it
played.
It was quite well-done, well-implemented and occasionally even subtle
satire, and it probably attracted the sort of people that might be able
to make their sensible voices heard by Etoys.
Hell, even if it didn't, it was a remarkably interesting and innovative
way to battle the 800 pound corporate gorillas, and it was an honor to
serve :)
If you're an etoy.agent, feel free to say 'hi' sometime or if you haven't
taken a look at it yet, you might want to try to sign up as soon as possible.
My alias is John.Prime and I guess I'll see y'all on the battlefield. Fight
the power...
Re:Hmm... toywar.com? (Score:1)
by Comte on Tuesday January 25, @11:43PM EST (#80)
(User
Info)
Yes, it was a very well-executed piece of media virus,
and I too was proud to serve! I think the one big lesson that was learned
here (and one that as an artist, I am surprised to see similar communities
continually RE-learning recently), is that a sufficiently large group of
talented, creative people united for a common cause CAN have a tremendously
positive impact! I think we are already beginning to see this energy spill
over into the DVD/DeCSS situation, and it is my sincere hope that the community
that was formed to support etoy.com will continue to exist, grow, thrive
and seek out avenues to use this groundswell to make the internet a realm
where the freedom to create will not be squashed. Semper Ars Chris Comte
etoy.AGENT Capt._Yosarian
Semper Ars
What are the chances that this
will never happen? (Score:1)
by HowIsMyDriving?(bornslippy@mindspring.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:32PM EST (#29)
(User
Info)
I think that this does not mean the end of internet
sqatting problems. Right now there is a case aginst some guy in Canada
who regestered his name, and is being sued by a NHL player becuase he thought
that the guy will give it up. Wake up, if a large corperation wants your
name, they will get 20 Lawyers and drain your money. In this case this
didn't happen and eToy got their name back. The average joe internet when
faced with a knock on the door will be scared and give up the domain name,
pull the web site, etc.. We need a site on the internet that lists all
the pending legal actions aginst domain name squatting, having a legit
web page being pulled (I am not talking about the WarEZ D00Dz) or lawsuits
involving internet flaiming. Sorry about the long rant I needed to get
it out.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip... A:To get to the other
... er .. um .. never mind.
What are the chances that this
will never happen? (Score:0, Redundant)
by HowIsMyDriving?(bornslippy@mindspring.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:32PM EST (#31)
(User
Info)
I think that this does not mean the end of internet
sqatting problems. Right now there is a case aginst some guy in Canada
who regestered his name, and is being sued by a NHL player becuase he thought
that the guy will give it up.
Wake up, if a large corperation wants your name, they will get 20 Lawyers
and drain your money. In this case this didn't happen and eToy got their
name back. The average joe internet when faced with a knock on the door
will be scared and give up the domain name, pull the web site, etc.. We
need a site on the internet that lists all the pending legal actions aginst
domain name squatting, having a legit web page being pulled (I am not talking
about the WarEZ D00Dz) or lawsuits involving internet flaiming.
Sorry about the long rant
I needed to get it out.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip... A:To get to the other
... er .. um .. never mind.
Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
by gothic(axe@crown.net)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:35PM EST (#34)
(User
Info)
As of 2000, Jan 25 - 9:45 Central time, I still cannot
resolve (www.)etoy.com. Is this still the 'problem' with NSI? Or is it
now a problem with the DNS server at the ISP? Could anyone let me know?
DNS at their ISP is probably fine, but the DNS at
your own ISP isn't! It takes up to two days for some DNS boxes to update,
depending on what your local server admin has it set to. If you want to
know for sure, you can set your local Linux box up to be a small-time DNS
server, and poll the root name servers (the official ones). Check the How-To's
to find out how!
Brad Johnson
Webmaster
http://mrpenguin.org
johnsonb@ryobi.com
seems their dns server is fine, just good ole slowass network solutions
is takin their time about it. altho interestingly enough the ip doesn't
do anything particularly interesting on the web so either it's /.ed or
their isp is havin issues
-dk
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. and yes,
my domain name is _supposed_ to be funny dammit...
etoy.com does not resolve. and the previously mentioned
IP address does not answer an icmp echo request... hrmmm.. /.ed or maybe
it has been hacked by etoys.com's cgi programmers in responce to that press
release.
Stupid people do stupid things... Smart people outsmart each other...
--System of a Down
well at least it didn't drag
out longer (Score:1)
by kc8apf(kc8apf@ti-files.org)
on Tuesday January 25, @10:35PM EST (#35)
(User
Info)
It could have been drawn out for a long time and
wasted lots of money. Now we can all go focus our attention on DeCSS instead
of domain squabbles. Big companies just always want everything don't they?
kc8apf
This is the best news on Slashdot in several days.
Hopefully the DVD and MP3 cases will follow along. This is the way the
'net should work against issues like this. Instead of sending hateful e-mail,
let the company and their investors know that you will not buy products
from a company that operates this way. If enough people do it, they will
eventually have to back down.
I wonder if there's anything that keeps etoys.com
from simply refiling the lawsuit before next year's holiday spending season
again. My impression is that etoys.com is really getting off scot-free
here.
Let's face it, the only way that this kind of bullshit stops would be
when ANYONE who brings frivolous and punitive lawsuits of this nature has
to pay severe financial sanctions for abusing the legal process.
I'm, of course, not talking just about the etoys episode, but of others
like that, like the current nonsense with the DVD-CCA. I'm not a big fan
of class-action lawsuits, but I think that something like that, a class-action
lawsuit, would be perfectly appropriate here. In my dreams, I see every
Linux owner who wants to be able to play DVDs certified as a member of
a class in an action against the DVD-CCA for restraint of trade and anti-competitive
practices. The DVD-CCA is preventing anyone from introducing competitive
DVD playing software, using coercion and intimidation. Microsoft is about
to be grabbed by the short hairs, for doing something very similar, why
can't the DVD-CCA?
--
E*Trouble
! (updated Nov 9)
Re:See you next year. (Score:1)
by Comte on Tuesday January 25, @11:51PM EST (#84)
(User
Info)
It is my understanding, based on the media reports
of the settlement, that both sides have withdrawn their respective suits
and countersuits "without prejudice", which essentially gives either side
the option to reinstante their legal action at anytime in the future, should
they so choose. So, you point is well taken. However, given the intense
negative publicity, not to mention catastrophic stock devaluation Etoys
has suffered, it hardly seems likely that they would do so. But, maybe
they think people on the 'net have attention spans similar to that of their
customers... CPC
Semper Ars
Their stock was at $65 a share. It dropped below $20 a share.
That's below the IPO.
Meanwhile there still seem to be a lot of pages out there that
the search engines are picking up. I wonder how many people are going to
be all that interested in cleaning those old files off their web space.
This is undeniably good news. However, representative
of hackers vs. corps as it was, the issue in and of itself was minor. The
DeCSS conflict, for example, is much more important. If etoy got destroyed,
it would be a symbolic tragedy, but if DeCSS is destroyed, far more
people will be inconvienienced. If DeCSS results in a victory for us, it
will be a much more public and important victory. If this victory can be
recreated in that arena, it will be much more meaningful. That said, this
is extremely good news, just when things were getting worse.
Four weeks ago, Internet toy giant eToys announced to the press that
it was "moving away" from its lawsuit against European art group etoy in
response to the torrent of public outrage. As the weeks went by without
further action, however, many activists decided that eToys' words had represented
a typical corporate ploy to derail opposition, and that the company had
no intention of actually dropping the suit.
Activists quickly renewed their campaigns against eToys. RTMark initiated
two new campaigns to drive eToys' stock price yet further down (it has
now sunk well below its opening value of $20 per share, after a high of
$67 reached the day the protests began), and a new community platform,
http://www.toywar.com, gathered a "toy
army" of 1400 activists poised to perform "operations" on command.
The strongest attack to date was scheduled to coincide with eToys' earnings
announcement on Thursday. Today, just in time, eToys formally dropped its
case against etoy "without prejudice"--a phrase that means either party
is still free to attack the other. eToys has also formally agreed to pay
etoy's court costs and other expenses incurred as a result of the lawsuit.
"A precedent has now finally been set in stone," said RTMark spokesperson
Ray Thomas. "eToys thought it could act like corporations typically do,
but it had no idea how the Internet works. Now e-commerce corporations
have a choice: either obtain a legal stranglehold on the Internet, so that
this kind of defensive reaction is no longer possible, or behave decently
towards the humans who use this medium for purposes other than profit."
"This is the Brent Spar of e-commerce," said Reinhold Grether, an Internet
researcher and a mastermind of the anti-eToys campaigns. "Just as the petroleum
industry learned it had to listen to environmentalists, so e-commerce companies
have now learned that the Internet doesn't belong to them, and they can't
do whatever they want with it." (See http://rtmark.com/shell
for more about the Brent Spar, and http://www.hygrid.de/etoyrhiz.html
for more comments by Grether.)
"eToys will try to paint this as a misunderstanding, as just a simple
error that has now been corrected," wrote etoy in a prepared statement.
"But this is not what happened. They tried to destroy us, and that got
them into very big trouble. They wanted to drop their case 'with prejudice,'
because they fear further attacks and trademark battles, but now they see
they have no choice at all in the matter. It is a total victory."
WHAT NOW?
Even though etoy has recovered its domain, the etoy Fund will not be
retired, said RTMark spokesperson Thomas. Each project's discussion board
will continue to function, and the resources of the etoy Fund pages will
continue to be accessible for use and research.
"We hope that this campaign continues to serve as a reminder to people
of what corporations do when left to their own devices, and as a reminder
to corporations of what they cannot do, at least on the Internet," said
Thomas. "We also hope people continue expressing their anger at eToys,
if they so choose. There are many ways to embarrass and further damage
this company--the Nazi
figurine eToys advertises
Re:RTMark Reaction (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @03:23AM EST (#119)
I oppose what eToys did, but trying to smear them
for selling a "Nazi figurine" is absurd. I suppose all those kids who grew
up assembling model panzer kits and such were closet Nazis, eh? Let's try
to stick to the issues of the case and not stoop to infantile tactics.
Re:RTMark Reaction (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @05:09AM EST (#124)
Agreed. The immaturity on this forum disturbs me
-- even if it is in support of a good cause. Articulate argument not laden
with ad hominem, personal or deflecting attacks are much more efficient.
It surprises me that someone would make this claim,
I mean my brother had the whole Raiders of the Lost Ark set of action
figures, and as you might expect it included that tough Nazi who got chopped
up in the airplane propellor (I think it also included that sadistic Gestapo
guy in the black trenchcoat). I'm hoping that people aren't going to try
to make the case that we should boycott Steven Spielberg because of this.
Truthfully, I don't see how an artists group could say, "We are
opposing censorship by encouraging censorship," but perhaps this is just
typical of avant guard artists seeing nothing worthwhile in pop-art, like
action figures or comic books.
It reminds me of Wolfenstein 3D for the Super Nintendo,
somehow removing all the Nazi imagery and having your marine fight some
generic evil dictator was supposed to be "sensitive." Yet having the same
imagery in two of the three Indiana Jones movies was not considered insensitive,
all Nintendo's actions showed me were that some people were determined
to keep game consoles a kiddy media in which no serious content would be
allowed. We've come a long way since then, witness the Steven Spielberg
produced game Medal of Honor, essentially
Wolfenstien 3D with an upgraded realistic engine.
Again, I would hope people aren't going to say, "Boycott Medal
of Honor" because it has Nazi's in it. Remember, if you can't talk
about Nazi's you can't talk about all the awful things they've done, and
that doesn't help anyone.
There are many ways to embarrass and further damage this company--the
Nazi figurine eToys advertises
All eToys's web site says about the toy is that it is a "German
Soldier by Dragon". There are NO NAZI emblems on the figure/doll.
So by RTMark's representation of the doll, all Germans are Nazi's.
And some of the Slashdot readers are on their side, not with this issue,
but it just seems so childish on RTMarks part..
And the part where "Many investors responded by dumping their eToys
stock." Maybe the investors where out of lockout and were finally able
to sell the stock that they had in the company to make a nice profit. OH
no.. It can't be that... it has to be because of RTMark.. uh huh.. some
group is a little full of themselves.
stock price (Score:1)
by soygreen on Tuesday January 25, @11:02PM EST (#47)
(User
Info)
no one got hurt - but the message is placed and
the eToys share value sunk below its initial price of $20: value on tuesday
/ 11.12 AM: $19.0625 per share unit.
This is just silly. A shift of $1 in the price of an Internet stock
is not even worth reporting. Suggetsing that there is somehow a causal
relationship is just somebody's ego talking.
Re:stock price (Score:1)
by bobalu on Tuesday January 25, @11:09PM EST (#54)
(User
Info)
No, it was much higher than the initial IPO price
when this started. I don't have the #'s handy, but the drop was significant.
Still not necessarily a causal relationship, but way more significant.
Doesn't change my opinion of
etoys (Score:1)
by JAZ on Tuesday January 25, @11:08PM EST (#53)
(User Info)
Backing off on a lawsuit that they were bound to
loose doesn't make them any less evil in my opinion.
I doubt they'd care, but before they ever want any of my business again,
they'll need to make major restitution to the internet community at large.
maybe throwing some of those high dollar laywers at helping the DVD/DeCSS
issue or huge donations to FSF, EFF, and other non profit orgs would be
a start.
but until they do, I'll still loathe them as an organization and they'll
never see a dime of my business. Or the business of anyone who will listen
to me rant for about 5 minutes on the subject.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
Re:Doesn't change my opinion
of etoys (Score:1)
by vanilla on Wednesday January 26, @12:33AM EST (#99)
(User
Info)
So, you eToys did everything you asked them to, including
paying the legal bills of etoy, and you say you still won't give them a
chance. That's unfortunate because:
- It shows companies that they have nothing to gain by doing what you
ask of them.
- It shows that your stance is not rational, but rather an emotional
ride on the Slashdot bandwagon.
I would respectfully suggest that you give your emotions a little time
to cool off and then reconsider. If you have toys to buy and eToys is the
best site for them, give them a shot.
And consider this: eToys actually did something you asked them to do.
How likely is it that Amazon will drop their petty patent lawsuit for you?
Re:Doesn't change my opinion
of etoys (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @02:59AM EST (#117)
So, you eToys did everything you asked them to,
including paying the legal bills of etoy, and you say you still won't give
them a chance. That's unfortunate because:
- It shows companies that they have nothing to gain by doing what
you ask of them.
I don't want companies to act like shitheads and then reverse course
when myself and others criticize them over it. I want them to not act like
shitheads in the first place. To that end, I'd like to see eToys
get harshly punished for their behavior. When the story first broke, a
few people were talking about etoy possibly filing an anti-SLAPP lawsuit
against eToys. I haven't heard any more about this, and I consider
it unfortunate. A judgement of a few million dollars against them might
serve to deter other companies who are tempted to behave like shitheads.
Actually they havent done everything I want them
to do. Even if I don't count the fact that I would like them to go bankrupt.
They have compensated the legal bills, but what about the other damages
done? let alone post a very large public apology and a link to eToy on
their sites replacing the normal portal-page. Sure.. they did something.
but not enough for me to consider them an honest business (if such a thing
exists)
Re:Doesn't change my opinion
of etoys (Score:1)
by eln(eriknielsen@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday January 26, @12:51PM EST (#138)
(User Info)
What other damage done are you referring to?
etoy got their legal bills paid, AND a boatload
of free advertising. I'd wager there are many
thousands of people out there that at least will
visit etoy's site on occasion that weren't
even aware of its existence previous to this
fiasco.
eToys did a stupid thing, they got slammed, they
gave it up. etoy got taken offline, but in the
meantime got tons of great publicity.
eToys will pay back the damages they are
responsible for (the legal fees), and etoy will
come back much more successful and popular
than they were before. It's ludicrous to continue
to persecute eToys, and refuse to give them your
business, when they have done no lasting damage.
Re:Doesn't change my opinion
of etoys (Score:2, Insightful)
by Comte on Wednesday January 26, @02:24PM EST (#141)
(User
Info)
The recommended tactic used by advocacy groups in
this instance is to actually give the organization positive re-inforcement
for finally coming around and doing the right thing. It doesn't mean you
approve of or support the negative things they've done, but it does show
them that you recognize their "change of heart" and leaves them with the
realization that good actions will be encouraged. Of course, should they
misbehave in the future, you have to repeat the process of punishment/reward,
but if they're even reasonably intelligent, eventually they learn the lesson.
The idea is to condition them to do "good" in the first place, rather than
do "harm", then backpedal when the punishment becomes unbearable.
Semper Ars
Re:Doesn't change my opinion
of etoys (Score:1)
by kcbrown(kcbrown@slip.net)
on Thursday January 27, @02:52AM EST (#152)
(User
Info)
I'll probably refrain from purchasing something from
Etoys until next year. If they don't try this same crap again during the
next Christmas season, that'll be much more convincing evidence that Etoys
is sincere and has learned something. But unfortunately, it's difficult
to tell until then.
--
Hint: use 'slashdot' in the subject line of your email to me if you
want me to see it.
Whine, whine, whine (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:49AM EST (#112)
So, if etoys files suit against etoy again tomorrow,
it won't bother you, right? That's the logical consequence of what you're
saying.
I guess this means that if I ever get on your shit list, I might
as well be an asshole to you forever -- because it won't make a difference
to you if I ever stop.
I haven't needed a login for the nytimes articles
I've seen linked too from slashdot or yahoo in a couple months. I don't
recall entering one of the many free logins & passwords either (but
wouldn't rule that out, I can forget stupid things like that :). Have they
gotten smart and ditched the login idea?
The Bigger Picture -- Goliaths
Are Out of Control (Score:5, Informative)
by Eric_Grimm on Tuesday January 25, @11:30PM EST (#72)
(User
Info)
Several Other Comments ask whether another Goliath
vs. David lawsuit is just around the corner. Well, truth is that several
Goliath vs. David reverse domain name piracy lawsuits are already pending
in the courts and just haven't received any Press yet. (Reverse Domain
Name Piracy means the use or threat of lawsuits and big $$ in legal
bills to extort the little guy to give up his domain name).
I'm still waiting for jamie (/. regular) to publish something about
the Superbowl of Domain Name Disputes (need to trademark that title :)
!! ) -- the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball are all going after
a company called FlairMail (www.FlairMail.com) that makes vanity email
addresses (like HotMail addresses, but you get to have [myname]@goyankees.com
or [myname]@bulls1.net, instead of advertising for a Bill Gates
subsidiary) available for FREE to subscribers. All of the sports vanity
names are DIFFERENT from the team names, by adding "go" or "1," and several
non-sports names are also available. FlairMail has NEVER claimed to be
endorsed, sponsored, or approved by the sports leagues (and it doesn't
have to be -- the law does not require the approval of the sports leagues).
Some fans who buy hats and clothing or who subscribe for vanity email
addresses may perfer to pay extra for the knowledge that they have the
"official" product. Other customers may not prefer to pay extra. The bottom
line (and there are quite a few court cases to prove it) is that THAT CHOICE
BELONGS WITH THE CUSTOMERS. The sports leagues do not have the right to
make that choice for them. But that doesn't stop sports licensing organizations
from trying. For example, a couple of months ago, Collegiate Licensing
went after a father and son in Ohio for selling "Beat Michigan" sweatshirts.
Collegiate Licensing claimed it violated U of Michigan's trademarks. I
live in Ann Arbor and I graduated from Michigan law school, and no matter
how big a Michigan fan I am, I am still upset and embarrassed by the greed
of Collegiate Licensing.
There are lots of other Goliath v. David lawsuits pending or
that have been resolved by the courts. Here is a sample (less than a third
of the examples I know about):
Avery-Dennison vs. Sumpton -- Vanity Email Business had to go
through trial and appeal before "little guy" won on appeal in the Ninth
Circuit. Appeals court told the trial court to consider awarding attorneys'
fees to deter the big company from doing the same thing again.
Hasbro vs. Clue Computing -- It only cost Eric Robison, a Colorado
computer consultant, $100,000 and his marriage to defend himself after
toy giant Hasbro decided it wanted to take over the domain name www.clue.com
. Robison ultimately "won" in the sense that the court said he could keep
his domain name. But did he really "Win?"
Northern Light Technology vs. NorthernLights.com A search engine
was not happy enough with its own domain name and the roughly 300+ additional
domain names that NLT registered. So the search engine (which is named
after a clipper ship) sued one of its neighbors (which uses the domain
name NorthernLights.com -- a reference to the Aurora Borealis), in an effort
to take over that domain name, too. The defendant (NorthernLights.com)
was using the domain name almost an entire year before the search engine
website was launched. The case is still pending in Boston federal court.
The judge has suppressed the expressive activity of the little guy by ordering
a black "jump page" to be posted in front of his website. (I confess I
have a personal interest in this one and the "Superbowl" case.) See
http://www.NorthernLights.com/new/
HealthNet.org -- this website belongs to a charitible group of
international physicians. However, there is an insurance comapny in California
that already owns HealthNet.com and HealthNet.net. As you can imagine,
the Insurance company sent a threatening letter to the physicians' organization,
who had to file a
Re:The Bigger Picture -- Goliaths
Are Out of Contr (Score:2, Interesting)
by keefer(keefer+slashdot@tzone.logicalalt.com) on Wednesday
January 26, @02:46AM EST (#115)
(User
Info)
Thank you for the informative post, but what I personally
think would be greatly appreciated is perhaps more information on the Cybersquatting
act.
You make good points about what SHOULD be common sense cases, i.e. people
using their own names in businesses, businesses or websites formed way
before a company even existed, etc. But there IS in fact a problem out
there. It is easily illustrated by checking out this yahoo
link. These are all domain name brokers, where you can go to buy or
sell domain names.
There are literally thousands, maybe even 10s of thousands of domain
names just sitting there by people speculating that someday they'll be
useful. A quick check at the domainmart on that yahoo page shows e-businesstv.com
available for US$1,000,000! eJobSeeker is a relative bargain for only $1,795.
Big clue: No one on any of those domain-name-for-sale registrars ever
has any intention of ever using them. To me, that is what the cybersquatting
rule should really enforce, because I agree that trademark rule should
apply to cases where it is generally obvious the name in question has nothing
to do with the owner of the name.
In my personal perfect world, owning a domain name would be like owning
a patent (yes, I know patents don't work like this now, that's part of
my point): You should be actively engaging in using your IP or domain name
or whatever for it to really be enforceable. Companies I have worked for
have been stymied by people that own patents, despite the fact that no
product has ever been produced by them utilizing said patent. If you're
not using it, and we come up with this idea, and it turns out some schmoe
has a patent on it, we can't do it.
I feel that trademarks, patent law, all that stuff does in fact have
its place. To me, it seems obvious that etoy was clearly in the right,
having existed long before etoys came into being. But the world is driven
by lawyers, not by logic. So any light you could shed into this murky bog
would be greatly appreciated.
Re:The Bigger Picture -- Goliaths
Are Out of Contr (Score:1)
by Eric_Grimm on Thursday January 27, @01:36AM EST (#151)
(User
Info)
Patents expire after a limited term of years, so
I'm not sure that is the model we want. Patents can also be bought and
sold (and even auctioned to the highest bidder), so I'm not sure, keefer,
what you are really trying to argue here.
I, too, think there have been problems (Dennis Toeppen's registration
of Panavision, for example) with the domain name system. I'm more than
willing to hear your views about what, precisely, the "problem" is and
how, precisely, you propose to "correct" it.
At the same time, I am skeptical about whether the new statute makes
things better or worse. There is still an active marketplace in domain
names (and I'm not persuaded yet that an active marketplace is a bad thing
-- you need to make a more presuasive argument before you can convince
me that the existence of a market is a problem), so the statute has not
stopped that.
However, I CAN give you a concrete example -- "famous personal names"
are not trademarks and have never traditionally had any federal trademark
rights. The statute says it is okay to register a "famous personal name,"
even if that name is not your own, IF you are doing so to create
a bona fide website. Now, let's say the celebrity comes along before the
website is posted and says "thanks for being a good fan, but I'd like the
name instead and I will pay you $100,000 for it." Guess what --
under the statute you cannot sell the domain name without violating
the law. Then again, I would say one could make a fair argument (I'm not
completely sure I will adopt it, but I like it nonetheless) that famous
celebrities should ALWAYS be prohibited from owning their own names
as domain names. Instead, how about a rule to promote diversity of Internet
speech, that says whoever owns a celebrity domain name has an affirmative
legal duty to share it with other fans, so everyone can express
themselves at the website. It really depends on your politics and your
worldview whether you prefer THAT hypothetical world, as opposed to a hypothetical
world in which a "famous personal name" celebrity gets an automatic monopoly
over all [celeb].com, [celeb].net and [celeb].org domain names on the Internet
and gets to EXCLUDE everyone else from it, or charge RENT for the
privilege of publishing there. If I had to choose one or the other, I suppose
I would prefer an Internet where every fan has the right to publish, but
the celebrities have to play by the same rules as everyone else. There's
a lot of rhetoric inside the Beltway about the wisdom of keeping the hands
of government off the Internet. Well, in this case, the Laisez-faire Republicans
disregarded their own advice, and the result (the so-called "Cybersquatting
Act")is a confusing patchwork of random ideas thrown together at the last
minute. As I said before, the statute makes things worse and creates more
problems than it allegedly solves. We would be better off just going back
to the way the rules were before the statute was passed.
I'm not sure. . . (Score:1)
by Cyberllama(RyanMercado@mad.scientist.com)
on Tuesday January 25, @11:37PM EST (#74)
(User
Info)
Is paying another companies legal fees enough to
compensate for completely removing them from the market during the holiday
season when more toys are sold than any other time of year?
Timing (Score:3, Insightful)
by Lupus Rufus on Tuesday January 25, @11:57PM EST (#85)
(User
Info)
Does anyone else think the timing of these proceedings
is a little strange? Back when people were discussing the lawsuit in the
first place, I remember there being talk of how Etoys didn't want to lose
a chunk of marketshare during the Christmas season rush to people mistakenly
going to etoy or becoming disgusted with Etoys as a result of going to
etoy. Well, now the Christmas season is over and done with, so the incentives
for Etoys to maintain the injunction against etoy have evaporated. They're
only pandering to the free-internet-speechers once their original purpose
(to protect holiday-season mind- and marketshare) has been amply satisfied.
THIS IS HARDLY A VICTORY.
If Goliath can push David around until Goliath gets his feast, only
then letting poor David go, Goliath is still in charge. As others have
said, the only way to assure a proper victory is to make sure stupid preliminary
injunctions cannot be carried out in the first place. This requires a court
decision or legislation. Since the latter is pretty unlikely (Wall Street
owns Congress, yadda yadda yadda), we need someone to take one of these
lawsuits to completion.
How about a countersuit, etoy? You and the rest of us first-amendment-pushers
deserve to reap the rewards.
And pigs can fly... Probably what did the trick was
thousands of email, each with the contents: We don't like you, the way
you conduct business and I am spreading this to everyone I know. Furthermore,
I am blocking your site, cancelling my orders (if any) and I'm not ordering
anything from you anymore. It's not nice, it's not eloquent, but if enough
people yell it in your ear...
Once the injunction is lifted, etoy will again be able to sell its
"shares" -- another of its pseudo-corporate projects -- in the United States.
Those who supported the group during the lawsuit will be rewarded with
shares, which are more valuable as a result of the suit, zai said.
Is slashdot one of the recipients of these "shares"? If so, do these
"shares" count legally (will Rob, etc. now be required to say "Disclaimer:
we own shares in etoy"?)
An etoy "share" is an artwork, not a financial instrument.
Inasmuch as etoy are artists with a certain degree of fame, I suppose an
etoy "share" is worth something in terms of money, like a sculpture or
a painting, but it does not have the same kind of value as an share of
stock, that is, a fractional part of the value of the issuing organization.
Can't you see what their only
purpose was? (Score:2, Interesting)
by darkwhite(ak@aURLadaykeepsspamaway.creativegeometry.com)
on Wednesday January 26, @12:34AM EST (#100)
(User
Info)
Etoys' only purpose was to shut the site down for
the Chrismtas season when they were generating huge earnings. After December
26 or round about they didn't give a damn about Etoy. Of course, now they
are dropping the suit "in the spirit of good will and open-mindedness"
or whatever.
OK, I'm happy. Score one point for the little guy.
Cograts, etoy!
Now onto the bigger battles. Amazon, DVD CCA, and (though this one seems
less clear-cut) RIAA vs. everyone. But it's heading in the right direction....
does the spirit of Nietzsche
live still? (Score:2, Insightful)
by arcus on Wednesday January 26, @06:21AM EST (#127)
(User
Info) http://arc.stuff.gen.nz
"IT WAS A PLEASURE TO DO BUSINESS WITH ONE OF THE
BIGGEST E-COMMERCE GIANTS IN THE WORLD: F*U*C*K*I*N*G* INTENSE & REALLY
EXPENSIVE BUT A KICK FOR ALL OF US! WE ALL LEARNED A LOT"
Only the lawyers are getting
fat on all this (Score:2)
by Morgaine on Wednesday January 26, @10:25AM EST (#135)
(User
Info)
Like arms dealers, lawyers supply both sides of the
field, always win regardless of which side loses, and never get tarnished
with the mud and blood that flies.
Could someone explain to me why eToy even bothered
responding to this suit? How can the decision of a judge in Los Angeles
be enforced against an artist collective in Zurich? And why would a Californian
judge even bother to make a ruling on a case that is clearly out of his
jurisdiction?
Nick
One at a time or all together, it makes no odds to me.
Given that Network Solutions, Inc. was willing to
discontinue the www.etoy.com propogation, etoy had no choice but to respond.
As far as a judge ruling on something outside his jurisdiction, what are
we, f**kin' mind readers :) ? You want my logical conclusion based on my
personal review of all the facts? The judge ruled because he was ignorant
of the consequences and of all the facts in the case.
Hey, I'm Microsoft Certified; why does my mom refer to me as "My husband's
son"?
Hey man, you see that neat little button just to
the left of the "A" key? That's called the "Caps Lock" key. It's not just
for randomly pushing to turn on and off that cool light on your keyboard.
Learn to use it.
Posted by Roblimo on Tuesday
January 25, @08:25PM
eToys
Inc. Drops etoy Suit - For Real This Time