Slashdot Log In
FedEx Cracks Down on Box Furniture, Citing DMCA
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:18 PM
from the news-of-the-nutty dept.
from the news-of-the-nutty dept.
nospmiS remoH writes "Wired is running an article about a guy with no money making furniture out of FedEx boxes. If that weren't strange enough, FedEx is going after him, legally citing the DMCA. Yes, the DMCA. Apparently they are not upset about the furniture itself but rather this site that he put up with pictures of his creations (pretty good work really). My favorite quote from the article, '...Avila clearly intended to operate a business from his website because he used the .com domain suffix, the "commercial level domain," rather than .net.' You just can't make this stuff up."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Free Boxes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Informative)
http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_no
Parent
The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! (Score:5, Interesting)
I had thought Fedex and UPS did the same, but I just examined a couple Fedex medium boxes we had laying around here and they don't say anything of the sort.
Parent
Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because if they do think they still own the box after the delivery has been made, they'd better get over here and pick them up or I'm sending them the bill for expenses and labor used to properly dispose of their boxes.
Note I am talking about boxes that have been used for shipping something, not empty boxes the shipping company may have provided with the understanding that they be used in doing business with them. Its not entirely clear to me how he got his boxes.
Parent
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.fedex.com/cgi-bin/qrf2.cgi?link=4&fir
Here's the message that I sent:
I saw this article today in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,68492,00
I think it's despicable that FedEx is using the DMCA to harass a guy who can't afford furniture and is just trying to make the best of an unfortunate situation. Perhaps you have forgotten the time that the owner of FedEx gambled the company payroll in Vegas to save the company.
As a result of this incident, I will be shipping with UPS whenever possible.
I also know a few hundred thousand other people who feel the same way:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/08/11/1715204.shtm
Parent
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! When the box is full, where do you ship the stuff?
Parent
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Funny)
"Judges and juries, man. They don't get nothin'. They don't know that sometimes God wants you to kill your family and, like, do stuff with their body parts. Read the Bible, man - God's all into that. So, what you in here for, man?"
"Eh.. I got these boxes from the Post Office.."
Parent
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Informative)
In 1976 the Postal Service filed its first annual comprehensive statement to comply with an amendment to the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act. The amendment, now codified as Title 39, United States Code (USC), Section 2401 (e), required that a comprehensive statement accompany the annual Postal Service budget submission to Congress. The amendment further required the Postal Service to explain and address 1) the plans, policies, and procedures designed to comply with the statutory mission of the Postal Service; 2) general postal operations, including data on service standards, mail volume, productivity, trends in postal operations, and analyses of the impact of internal and external factors upon the Postal Service; 3) financial information relating to expenditures and obligations incurred; and 4) other matters necessary to ensure that Congress is "fully and currently consulted and informed on postal operations."
From Wikipedia:
"The United States Postal Service (USPS) is the United States government-owned corporation...".
So maybe they are technically no longer a branch of the govt, but they certainly are wholly owned by it, which sounds to me like they are still run by the government. You'll also remember that the USPS can't raise postal rates without congressional approval either.
And from a Priority Mail box I have:
"This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail. Misuse may be a violation of Federal law."
Betcha won't find that on a private corporation's packages...
Parent
Re:Free Boxes (Score:5, Informative)
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Yup, it's in there.
Parent
Trademark yes, copyright no (Score:5, Interesting)
It's constantly amazing to see the extent to which people will abuse the DMCA to get what they want.
Re:Trademark yes, copyright no (Score:5, Informative)
He is doing neither, so FedEX really is just strongarming this guy because he dared to abuse their free boxes.
Parent
Re:Trademark yes, copyright no (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx (Score:4, Informative)
UPS, especicially. You can get huge "25KG" boxes intended for international shipping. I have UPS drop these on my doorstep every time I move, all for free.
This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
I can understand them being upset about this, and I'm hard pressed to think of an appropriate response. Updating the terms under which they ship people free boxes so this behavior is banned, and then asking the web site owner to add a highly visible notice explaining this would have been far more reasonable, and just as effective.
Now, there will be a whole host of mirror sites. A web site that would have been a fun curiosity has now been made infamous. Many more people will now be directed to this site than would have otherwise seen it.
This is a backfiring legal strategy if I ever saw one.
Parent
Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
So, what legal leg does FedEx hope to stand on? They offered to send these boxes to people for free. Yes, they were intended for shipping, but there was no agreement made that says "You must ship with us with these supplies." End result? FedEx is going to lose this one. They offered free supplies, and someone took'm.
Parent
Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx (Score:4, Interesting)
The boxes you buy from the packing store are far from being as strong.
Parent
Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx (Score:4, Insightful)
It's remarkable how people seem to equate "legally allowed" with "ethical or friendly". He's allowed to talk loudly at a restaurant about his colonectomy and the resulting issues with fecal smearing. It's legal... and makes him a piss poor example of humanity.
--
Evan
Parent
Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with that from a moral standpoint -- I figure we all have our little moral justifications that we use to save us a buck here and there at the expense of The Man. It all works out in the end. But from a time standpoint, I don't get it. How much is your time worth? How much time does that trip to the corner store take you that would've otherwise been saved had you just picked up the quart of half and half when you picked up the gallon of milk at the grocery store? And if you feel just the slightest twinge of guilt upon "cheating" the corner store out of $.60 worth of half and half, what is that worth to you?
From a financial standpoint it doesn't make sense.
It's kinda like the 3 hours I spent driving around town the other day looking for a single 7mm nut. $.23 plus tax, but 3 hours of my time plus gas.
Parent
Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. UPS and FedEx are charging as much as the market will bear. If their costs go down, they make more profit, and if their costs go up they make less. If FedEx and UPS choose to give away free boxes for their own reasons, that is between them and the people that take advantage of it. It doesn't effect other customers one bit.
I'll give you one example: if prices were strictly linked to costs, then cans of soda-pop would cost more in states where the distributors and retailers have to take a deposit and then refund it when the customer returns the can. Clearly, it costs them something to process and keep account of those cans coming back to the retailer and then back to the distributor, but the prices are not any higher.
Parent
Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx (Score:4, Insightful)
A funny anecdote is that at work they've made 20oz sodas $1.25. Partly for ease in making change but I can't help but think its because they've got a captive audience. Same thing with most airports; despite being very thirsty I couldn't stomach paying $1.75 at BWI for a 20oz. DCA however seems to be committed to competitive pricing.
I've seen it go both ways, I guess. I know my wife's primary care physician sent out a letter explaining why the cost of their service was going up. Our response was to drop 'em like a ton of bricks;their underlying costs rolled up into their service price, and the market (us) wouldn't bear it.
Parent
Re:Even better! (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, UPS has the worst track record in package handling. One time I was looking for a job during college.. I went to UPS and they took us on a tour of their package handling facilities. You will never want to be a customer of UPS after you tour their facilities. They don't care about your package. The people who work there have to work their "packages per hour" number.. if they get too low, they get fired, so quality/careful handling doesn't simply exist at UPS.
Parent
Re:Even better! (Score:5, Informative)
And at 9.50/hour in 95 degree heat inside the warehouse, the condition of your package is the least of my concerns.
For those considering a career at UPS: please first consider dealing smack or pimping out underaged runaways. It's a good deal more fulfilling.
Parent
Best example of corporate stupidity...ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever (Score:5, Funny)
Insane Lawyer: "hey, this guy is making our logo and related corporate branding imagery get seen by millions of people worldwide... hmm... let's ruin our reputation with every single one of those people!"
CEO: "hey yeah good idea! proposal approved!"
Parent
Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever (Score:5, Funny)
"I dont get it. We sue the fuck out of them and they STILL won't buy our products!"
Parent
It does sound silly, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It does sound silly, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It does sound silly, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, so they don't like it... they probably don't like other people using competitors like UPS or Purolator, but that's part of doing business... and it's no grounds for legal action at all.
Parent
Re:It does sound silly, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) If ANY kind of lawsuit could be brought for "buying too many boxes, and then using them in an unapproved manner", it would be in small-claims court.
2) Since they couldn't find a way to sue him for ketchup violations, they decided to sue him for trademark violations?!? And the argument involves DMCA and the .com domain name? And a lawyer gets paid far far too much to draft this lawsuit up, so they could sue a man who can't afford Ikea?? That's comedy man!
Parent
Re:It does sound silly, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Lawyer: See! Right there, I told you so! If you allow Mr. Avila to continue using the FedEx trademark, customers will become confused, and may think they're donating money to the REAL FedEx corporation!
So, does that mean when he can't pay the legal fees to defend himself he will be forced to sell his furniture and get sued again?!?!
Parent
Allowances for artistic expression? (Score:5, Insightful)
Full mirror here (Score:5, Informative)
Mirror [networkmirror.com].
A little bit excessive... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is wayyy over the line!
Well, guess I won't be shipping any packages with FedEx any time soon. Knowing that "that could be me" is enough for me to boycott the company and encourage others to do so as well...
Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? (Score:5, Insightful)
A judgement, which generally comes after a hearing, is another matter.
There's no way they'd win any claim of damages, period. They might be able to persuade a network provider to remove a site, but that's only because the customer usually has signed a contract with the provider that waives any right to damages resulting from a site being taken down, not because lawyers get to make law merely by writing letters to people.
If he's violating copyright and trademark law, then why can't Ford sue me for driving a Ford with Ford trademarks all over it? If I put a picture of my Ford on the the web, can they take down my site?
Precisely how is this different?
Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
It's all about shutting down the site. (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawsuit is probably not expected to succeed, but to pressure the web site owner into closing up shop. If he doesn't have the cash for proper furniture, then he won't have the cash for lawyers.
For FedEx, "winning" consists of getting the site of the Internet. The legal battle is a means to an end.
Of course the result of all this is I'll be pressuring our shipping department to use UPS instead.
Re:It's all about shutting down the site. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's all about shutting down the site. (Score:4, Informative)
It's called a SLAPP lawsuit. A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
Basically, using the courts to shut people up, intimidate them or harass them, without needing to win, or suing somebody for revenge after they divulged something you didn't want divulged, is a SLAPP.
There are penalties for SLAPP lawsuits.
This is almost certainly one. What they would be suing for if they were serious, is the use of the URL and trade name for FEDEXFURNITURE dot com.
Especially since the guy colored FedEx the red and blue colors like the FedEx logo.
Basically he could have said Shipping Container furniture all he wanted, but by naming his site fedexfurniture.com he is using their name.
However, if FedEx hasn't trademarked that name for use in the furniture industry, I'd say they're SOL.
Well, except that he is stealing his materials from their company.
Parent
He's a geek (Score:5, Funny)
If any shipping corporations have problems with our site please feel free to forward requests to
Re:He's a geek (Score:5, Funny)
can handle his 5-foot-6-inch, 165-pound frame, even when he jumps up and down on it (an experiment he tried in response to an e-mail asking if the bed could support two people).
Parent
Just another step on the road to hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
In many countries like Brazil, it's completely impossible to run a business and abide by the labyrinthe of complicated and conflicting laws. Is this the kind of country we want in the U.S.?
Now, it's possible that FedEx has a case that this guy is abusing their trademark with the appropriately colored "Fed Ex" text on his site, but I can't see how he is harming them and the fact that they would... and could... cite the DMCA is just frightening. Is there no sense of perspective among these huge companies? All the guy is saying is that they make good boxes, but now they will generate not a small amount of bad will.
Now if the guy was selling the furniture, I also think they'd have a case. As it is, maybe he'll have to spray paint or otherwise obscure the company's logo. I thought these guys paid big bucks to plaster their names on anything they could like billboards, TV commercials, stadiums, people's foreheads...
I guess Mattel missed out by not using the DMCA when they pounded the crap out of that harmless little Barbie site several years ago. I guess the lawyers need someone to beat up or they start getting cranky.
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Illegal use of their trademark maybe, since he's got a web-page up (allegedly, the site seems slashdotted) showing their boxes with their logo on it.
But he didn't do anything to circumvent anything resembling a copy-protection mechanism or otherwise infringe on the copyrights of FedEx.
How in heck could the DMCA even be applicable here?
If we had the DMCA in the 60s... (Score:5, Insightful)
W
Slashdotted? (Score:5, Funny)
1) Someone puts up a website that irritates your corporation
2) File a frivolous lawsuit against the website
3) Wait until Slashdot picks up the resulting story
4) Watch the site go down in flames due to the subsequent slashdotting.
5) Objective achived, site is offline!
Slashdot - greater threat to free speech than the DMCA?
Obviously! (Score:5, Funny)
And the reason he couldn't actually test his bed with two people on it obvious.... right?
Fedex copyright claims (Score:5, Insightful)
* "Fedex owns the copyright of its packaging"
ergo:
* "Fedex has the exclusive right [...] to create derivative works, to distribute copies to the public by sale [...] rental, lease, or lending and to publicly display its copyrighted works".
* "By posting photographs of works derived from Fedex packaging materials [...] Mr Avila is inducing, causing or materially contributing to the infringement conduct of others, and could be held liable as a contributory infringement".
There are other issues, but not related to copyright (trademark, unlawful access to the packaging materials).
I believe the fedex lawyer has a very weak argument: that the copyright of the design on the box extends to the box as a physical object. This is non-sense. If this was the case, any built product that uses material that has a copyrighted logo printed on it will become a "derivative work". That will mean that we will require a "license" from the material supplier to be able to use it. Non sense
Trademarks (Score:5, Insightful)
If they get pushy (such as threatening to sue) I'd offer to change the domain name to something like "shippingboxfurniture" and otherwise tell them to go piss up a rope.
Re:He's a nerd, without a doubt. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent