FedEx Cracks Down on Box Furniture, Citing DMCA

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."

Free Boxes

[dthrall]

I explored both his site and the fedex site... seems to get the boxes from fedex, you need an account... the good new? the USPS will send you free shipping supplies :)

Re:Free Boxes

[dthrall]

Here's that USPS URL:

http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non _ssl/home.jsp [usps.com]

The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes!

[pergamon]

Shipping supplies from the USPS state very clearly that they're the property of the USPS. The first time you order a shipment of boxes from the USPS, they make you sign something saying that you acknowledge this fact and that those supplies are indeed only for the purpose of sending stuff by means of USPS.

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.

Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes!

[shotfeel]

But I don't care what agreement the shipper & shipping company may have, if its a box that's shipped to me, I consider it my property.

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.

Re:The catch? Those aren't your USPS boxes!

[Chainsaw76]

Actualy, he says he ordered 300 boxes, because he ships frequently. And that his furniture was built from those boxes, and that if he needed a box for shipping he would take one out of his furniture to do it.

-Jason

Re:I Call Shenanigans.

[hesiod]

> you can easily evade this design with a few moments' patience and some duct tape: Simply tape up the box so that no design is visible.

Or if you get the ones that you have to fold/assemble yourself, just make them inside-out, giving you a nice plain brown or white box.

Re:Free Boxes

[Desert Raven]

Don't play this game with the USPS. Unlike FedEx, the USPS has very strict terms of use for their materials, printed clearly on each box/envelope. And, since they are a branch of the federal government, it's a federal offense to violate those terms.

Re:Free Boxes

[Yocto Yotta]

Well, one's thing is for sure -- I won't be posting pictures on my website showing off my USPS poster tube bong (DISCLAIMER: For tobacco use only) anytime soon. My USPS "toilet" probably wouldn't go over too well either . . .

Re:Free Boxes

[dubl-u]

My USPS "toilet" probably wouldn't go over too well either . . .

Wow! When the box is full, where do you ship the stuff?

Re:Free Boxes

[CyanDisaster]

...Wow! When the box is full, where do you ship the stuff...

I'm sure it could be sent to SCO...considering that's what they're full of...

Hope be with ye,
Cyan

Re:Free Boxes

[Savatte]

I think UPS' slogan says it all: "what can brown do for you?"

Re:Free Boxes

[Greslin]

Heh.. I can imagine the cellblock conversation now:

"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.."

Re:Free Boxes

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The Postal Inspection Service is a federal law enforcement agency, but USPS itself is no longer run by the government.

That's irrelevant. The USPS has a legal monopoly on mail and is for all intents and purposes a federal agency. Their computers still claim to be government property when you log on and congress has specific interest in their continued survival.

Re:Free Boxes

[EvilTwinSkippy]

...and congress has specific interest in their continued survival

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Yup, it's in there.

Re:Free Boxes

[Desert Raven]

From http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/cs04/ [usps.com]

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...

Re:Free Boxes

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Okay- I am going to admit to a funny error. I sold about 40 car repair manuals that I got for free on Ebay about a year ago. They fit perfectly in priority mail boxes and weighed under a lb so it was 3.85 to ship them anywhere in the country. Plus, with priority mail, you print the label on you computer (and pay), tape it on the box with the priority tape the USPS gives you free, and throw it on your front porch. You don't need to call for a pickup as the Mailman is there 6 days a week. (I live in a nice area, so there isn't an issue of theft from the porch, and it isn't visible from the street).
So I go online on usps.com and order 40 of the boxes I thought I needed. Except, of course, I am an idiot, so I ended up ordering 40 box of 10, thus 400 boxes. I felt like an ass, not so much because of the free boxes (I have actually used well over half of them so far for mailing) but because I my postman is a cool guy and the thought of him with 40 boxes of boxes....
A good reason to have anything bought on Ebay etc shipped by USPS- if it turns out to be counterfit, call the US Postal Inspection Service. They don't take kindly to misuse of the mail. UPS and FedEx don't have sworn federal agents with guns to investigate fake products sent theough their delivery channels....

Re:Free Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we let FedEx know what we think of this action?

https://www.fedex.com/cgi-bin/qrf2.cgi?link=4&firs t=y&formpage=general [fedex.com]

Here's the message that I sent:

I saw this article today in Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,68492,00. html [wired.com]

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.shtml ?tid=123&tid=17 [slashdot.org]

Re:Free Boxes

[AviLazar]

You "know a few hundred thousand other people"? Maybe you mean you saw a list of a few hundred thousand people who feel the same way as you? I don't even know a few hundred thousand other people - and I doubt I have ever met a few hundred thousand other people.

Not to mention what this guy was wrong:
FedEx sends these boxes under the good faith that you will use them to ship through FedEx (walk into a FedEx store and ask them for a box and they sell them...ship with the box and its free). So he is using their shipping supplies at no cost, using their name (fedexfurniture.com) and the furniture which is their name. All of this for a product. Maybe, as opposed to sitting 20 hours a day at his FedEx box, he should go out and get a job?

Great ingenuity on his part (or I should say his friends) - if he just made this stuff for himself and a couple of friends and said "hey look at this" it would be fine...but he is making a profit on another company w/o their permission - and they are losing money. That is NOT cool.

Re:Free Boxes

[shokk]

I think FedEx has a case here. I went to that site and thought I was at FedEx.com, no lie. For some reason it took longer to type into my browser than fedex.com, but I was still confused between the FedEx brand and this guy's attempt to make furniture.

In other news...
* Scotch brand tape will be suing anybody making a 3D contruct of tape similar to a ball
* Swingline will be suing anyone who makes a CD/floppy eject tool out of a paperclip
* International Paper will literally crucify anyone who makes paper footballs,
* various rubber-band manufacturers have formed a consortium specifically to pursue legal action against anyone that uses a rubber-band as a device similar to a slingshot or a projectile in itself
* the Ticonderoga pencil company will be after anyone who bundles pencils together into a tube shape to simulate a solid piece of wood

Sounds ridiculous? Wait and see!!!

Re:Free Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not selling anything. Get your facts straight.

Trademark yes, copyright no

[Kelson]

Can they justifiably go after him for trademark violations? Absolutely. But copyright? You'd have to be insane.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Tademark only applies if he is intending to sell products or pretend that he is FedEX (I saw the site, it is obviously a parody and labeled as such), as in the case of trademark dilution.

He is doing neither, so FedEX really is just strongarming this guy because he dared to abuse their free boxes.

Re:Trademark yes, copyright no

[joeljkp]

It's up to the judge in your case, influenced by considerable precedent and the quality of the arguments of the two sides. If you have a decent judge, he'll take a look at the work as a whole. If you have a non-decent judge, well, that's what judicial elections are for.

Re:Trademark yes, copyright no

[OrangeTrafficCone]

If you have a non-decent judge, you better hope his robe stays closed...

Re:Trademark yes, copyright no

[hey!]

I should copyright a sentence fragment on my site, and then sue everybody who says it for illegally redistributing my original work.

Well, you could, if you could show that that sentence was sufficiently original and creative, but it ain't easy. For example IIRC, story titles are seldom held to be copyrightable. I could write a short story called, "The Geek", and if you later wrote a different story with the same title, I wouldn't necessarily be able to prove you copied me. However, in rare instances you

Re:Trademark yes, copyright no

[pete6677]

Remember, this case has not gone to court or been ruled on by a judge in any way. Any stooge can send out a cease and decist order. It's not uncommon at all for corporate legal departments to try to intimidate someone for running a website which the company for some reason does not like. The DMCA simply gives them another club to swing. In this case, it seems like the only reason FedEx is even concerned is due to what he published on the internet, with their trademarked name visible. My guess is that he will make some slight changes to the site, like not prominately displaying the FedEx name, and that will settle the issue.

DMCA "abuse"?

[bani]

"abuse" implies the DMCA wasn't created for this purpose.

But you can bet it was designed for exactly this purpose, and more. That's why it's so frequently used to beat into submission anyone who is hosting a website that a corporation might find embarassing or offensive.

Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[Anonymous Coward]

I love their generosity.

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.

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[Soporific]

Nice. Thanks for making the rest of us pay inflated fees because you are too cheap to go to U-Haul and buy them like a normal person.

~S

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[sammy baby]

Screw that - head to the local package store or beverage place. They have tons of boxes used to ship beer, wine, and spirits, and they often wind up just dumping them. They're happy to give them away.

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[blackbear]

I did this the last time I moved. Those are very stong boxes. They also happen to be the perfect size and strength to move books. You can put just enough books in that an average person can easily carry the box, and it won't break.

The boxes you buy from the packing store are far from being as strong.

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[l3v1]

Thanks for making the rest of us pay inflated fees because you are too cheap to go to U-Haul and buy them like a normal person.

Ok, so "normal" means giving out money to some company when you can get the same or better for free. We're on Slashdot, go figure out the similarity of this situation on the OS front.

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[mekkab]

We're on Slashdot, go figure out the similarity of this situation on the OS front.

Its reasoning like this that I find on boingboing.net, and that I don't agree with.

TANSTAAFL. Linux Distros cost bandwidth, which can be amortized and taken care of in a cheap way (bit torrent..., etc.). Linux costs development time which many developers are willing to give up for free.

But Companies pay for HARD GOODS. Boxes cost. That cost is rolled up into the price of service. If the cost of raw materials goes up, the

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[phriedom]

"That cost is rolled up into the price of service. If the cost of raw materials goes up, the cost of the service goes up."

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.

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[mekkab]

Good counter point.

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.

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[cl0secall]

According to his blog [weblogswork.com], his original intention was to use the boxes for shipping, and continued to be a use for the boxes even after being assembled into furniture. To wit, "Since I frequently ship items, I ordered about 300 boxes of various sizes. I figured this would save me time, instead of walking down to the store whenever I needed to ship something, I could do it comfortably from home. Later that month I saw a picture from a friend of a desk that was made of boxes. My friend, Tom, was in a similar situ

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[JabberWokky]

Yes. He's still behaving like a jackass. A perfectly legal jackass, but not the kind of person you want to invite to your home or go to lunch with.

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

Re:Free Boxes from UPS & FedEx

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he's not a loudmouth.

Christ, why are the "ethical" people all so fucking loud and annoying?

Re:I'm sure he wouldn't want to come.

[zbuffered]

Heck, I just started buying a large coffee cup full of half and half at the corner gas station the other day because I figured out it was cheaper than buying a container of half and half.

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.

U-Haul sucks, use Budget instead

[SoCalChris]

Next time, try Budget Truck Rental. Their trucks are far nicer than U-Hauls. They try to keep the trucks in their fleet no older than 4 years.

I'm looking to move to Montana in a few months, from the Los Angeles area. The one way truck rental from U-Haul was over $5,000 for a 24' truck. The slightly larger truck that Budget offers was a little over half that price. For under $3,000, I could get it will all the moving supplies I need, and an auto trailer so my wife doesn't have to drive behind me.

Not to

This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit

[doublem]

The free boxes they send out are intended for customers. Instead of making money, they're subsidizing someone else's furniture needs.

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.

Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit

[Twanfox]

Here's the thing. You cannot sue someone under the DMCA unless they're violating DIGITAL copyrights, most notably circumvention of a device to protect against illegal copying (or legal copying, frankly. Another debate for later).

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.

Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit

[monkeydo]

Here's the thing. You cannot sue someone under the DMCA unless they're violating DIGITAL copyrights, most notably circumvention of a device to protect against illegal copying (or legal copying, frankly. Another debate for later).

Here's the thing. You're wrong. circumvention of copyprotection devices is but one section of the DMCA. There are others. Try reading it sometime. You might be surprised at how little you learn from /.

Re:This is why FedEx filed the lawsuit

[LarsG]

most notably circumvention

Anticircumvention is only a part of the DMCA. [wikipedia.org] FedEx tried to invoke 'notice and takedown' (see title II in the linked article).

Re:Even better!

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

I want my possessions to come to my apartment intact, not broken in 1000 pieces and the edges of the box smashed in.

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.

Re:Even better!

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just quit UPS last week, I can second Kiaser's observations. When you have three trucks to load with about 200-300 packages each, your primary concern is getting those boxes off the belt and in their right place on the truck as quickly as possible. If you spent your time trying to be delicate about it, you'd be up to your ass in packages. Because for everyone one you take off, there's three or four to take its place.

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.

Re:Even better!

[CrazyJim1]

Yah I used to work at UPS too. I had the 95 degree working conditions loading trucks, but that wasn't as bad as when I got my $1 an hour raise to sort packages, elbow to elbow with assholes. They'd be crude, and even body check you occassionally. But you're only working for 4 hours a night anyway... My true stories of bad work come from minimum wage labor at Sony for 12 hours straight, where its like 100 degrees, and you're wearing a chemical suit, and doing non stop movement around razor sharp metal tha

Re:Even better!

[Adult film producer]

"I want my possessions to come to my apartment intact, not broken in 1000 pieces and the edges of the box smashed in. Seriously, UPS has the worst track record in package handling."

Something like this eh ?

http://www.spikedhumor.com/Article.aspx?id=767 [spikedhumor.com]

Best example of corporate stupidity...ever

[DogcowX]

It's free publicity for FexEx. And now, it's all negative!

Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever

[necro2607]

Yeah it's like...

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!"

Re:Best example of corporate stupidity...ever

[Valiss]

Same as before (read: currently) with the record industry:

"I dont get it. We sue the fuck out of them and they STILL won't buy our products!"

It does sound silly, but...

[The I Shing]

I think fellow used fedex.com to order a whole lot of boxes with no intention of using them to actually ship stuff in. It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there. So I can see why FedEx would take umbrage at his using the boxes they're paying for to make furniture, and then turning around and showing everyone in the world how what a bunch of suckers FedEx is for giving boxes away for free.

Re:It does sound silly, but...

[Hawthorne01]

But information (and shipping boxes) WANT to be free... :-)

Re:It does sound silly, but...

[necro2607]

However, none of that even remotely justifies blatant abuse of the legal system...

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.

Re:It does sound silly, but...

[MindStalker]

It seems like they would have come clause in their free box request thingy, to ensure you use the boxes for shipping via fedex, and not for personal use. I had no idea you could get tons of free fedex boxes, if I had known I might have gotten em last time I needed boxes. Anyways, if they don't have such a clause, they need to fix it. If they do, they need to prosecute this guy for violating that clause, in effect stealing their boxes. Otherwise they need to STFU.

Re:It does sound silly, but...

[interiot]

Oh, c'mon now...

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!

Re:It does sound silly, but...

[Wescotte]

Jose Avila: I'm broke! See how broke I am? I'm funny too! Can't you spare just a little change?

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?!?!

Re:It does sound silly, but...

[theguyfromsaturn]

Then they should charge for the cost of the empty boxes. This guy showed publicly something that possibly thounsands of people do in one form or another. "Free" (as in beer) stuff tends to be abused this way. However, the guy might still have payed the few cents the boxes if it saved him the furniture.

Back in college...

[TheOtherAgentM]

They put out these stupid phone directories. No one wanted them. They were the biggest waste of money, and they ended up sitting outside on huge stacks for people to grab. One night, we took a whole bunch of them, added some duct tape, and we had a couch for our dorm room. The only problem was that the covers were glossy and we would also slide off the couch.

Allowances for artistic expression?

[Tepshen]

IANAL but after looking at the website it strikes me that on this scale the effort and pictures can almost be considered artistic. this guy did some very creative stuff with those boxes and I'm pretty impressed with the results. It seems pretty draconian even for DMCA to stifle this kind of work.

Re:Allowances for artistic expression?

[dubbreak]

From the furniture creator's blog:
"Over two weeks ago, FedEx improperly used the DMCA notice and take-down provisions to get the website at www.fedexfurniture.com taken offline. The company claimed trademark infringement and conversion, neither of which allow it to take advantage of the powerful remedy provided under the DMCA."... http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/ [stanford.edu]"

His blog is available at http://furniture.weblogswork.com/ [weblogswork.com]

Full mirror here

[winkydink]

Weird... very weird

Mirror [networkmirror.com].

Re:Full mirror here

[bizitch]

I wonder if he can make a new webserver out of FedEx boxes ;)

A little bit excessive...

[necro2607]

Aren't there laws about making absolutely unreasonable legal threats towards someone? ...

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*?

[fishbowl]

Just because some lawyer writes you a letter doesn't mean you have to do anything asked. If that were the case, there would be pure anarchy.

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*?

[Locke2005]

If you put up a web site called myford.com with a copy of the Ford logo on every page, then yes, they probably could sue you for trademark infringement. If he had simply named the site shippingcompanyfurniture.com, then FedEx should have no legal recourse. But of course he just had to use the trademarked "FedEx" in the name, and put a copy of the FedEx logo on every page.

The free FedEx boxes are the core of the issue

[doublem]

Your Ford comparison makes no reference to the fact that every person who attempts to produce their own FedEx furniture will be costing FedEx a few hundred dollars.

The boxes themselves aren't free. FedEx pays for them.

Shipping the boxes to the furniture maker isn't free. FedEx delivers them. Yes, it's not terribly expensive for FedEx, as they are already paying for tie delivery person, and the boxes are probably purchased at nice bulk discounts, but the fact remains that FedEx stands to lose a lot of cas

Re:Oooh, they wrote a *Letter*?

[BFaucet]

One thing you miss in your post is the cost associated with defending yourself against a giant company. Sure if you win you'll probably get your costs back, but high payed lawyers such as FedEx could afford would probably be able to keep a case going for a few years... Reguardless of how ridiculous the accusations.

It's all about shutting down the site.

[doublem]

Here's the real deal. FedEx doesn't want to be providing thousands to millions of boxes to people who won't be paying to use them to ship items via FedEx.

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.

[Kelson]

And, by making sure he gets Slashdotted, they've already succeeded!

Re:It's all about shutting down the site.

[ChaoticLimbs]

The main problem with that, of course, is that it's illegal to sue somebody to shut them up.
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.

Re:It's all about shutting down the site.

[NitroWolf]

Yeah, I'll stop using FedEx as well...

However, instead of UPS, which charges and arm and a leg to ship, try using DHL (Formerly known as Airborne Express) - they are usually at least a day or two faster than UPS and 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

Plus they are a cool yellow and red, not poop brown.

slashdotted

[BobVila]

Is the server made out of fedex boxes.

Its common

[hackstraw]

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.

Its common for homeless people or people without money to commit stupid crimes in order to get locked up for a while in order to get a free place to stay and food. This guy must have been clever to be able to first get temporary free furniture and then a temporary free place to stay and free food.

Very clever.

He's a geek

[digitalvengeance]

My favorite part of the site, the footer:

If any shipping corporations have problems with our site please feel free to forward requests to /dev/null. By emailing us any questions or comments you give fedexfurniture.com the right to post any such message, and or replies on our site.

Re:He's a geek

[Dare nMc]

and definitive proof from the site.

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).

You have to love their claim

[Evets]

You have to love their claim that his building furniture with fedex boexes violates the terms of use at fedex.com.

"fedex.com is provided solely for the use of current and potential FedEx customers to interact with FedEx and may not be used by any other person or entity, or for any other purpose."

Take down!

[Fr05t]

Fedex gave him warning, then posted a link to his site in a ./ article.

Just another step on the road to hell...

[ConceptJunkie]

I tell ya, we are rapidly approaching a time when anyone with money and power can attack anyone else, for any reason, under the guise of some byzantine law that no one understands, or agrees with, even the people who passed it.

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?

[gstoddart]

Since a cardboard box isn't Digital, and he's not Copying anything, how is DMCA applicable?

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...

[VValdo]

Andy Warhol would be in a lot of trouble [queensu.ca].

W

Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s...

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Well not to worry, if they can't get Warhol, they'll get his fans... [warhol.dk]

Oh the bitter irony...

Re:If we had the DMCA in the 60s...

[interiot]

In this case, "They" would be the owners of the late Andy Warhol's work, not Campbell Soup Company.

Questionable spending choices

[winkydink]

He can afford to spend money on a laptop and orange hair dye but not necessities. Misplaced priorities? More likely a publicity stunt.

Poor FedEx Pope

[DragonMagic]

He can't catch a break.

He's a nerd, without a doubt.

[mark-t]

FTA:

The bed 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).

Re:He's a nerd, without a doubt.

[JahToasted]

I think if your furniture is made out of Fedex boxes you aren't going to have many women staying the night. Even if you're willing to pay them.

Slashdotted?

[k98sven]

Hmm..

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!

[isa-kuruption]

The bed 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).

And the reason he couldn't actually test his bed with two people on it obvious.... right?

Fedex copyright claims

[dgerman]

According to a letter sent by Fedex layers to Ms Granick, from the Cyberlaw clinic Fedex claims copyright infringement because, I quote:

* "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

Slashdot.org

[cparisi]

I guess that makes slashdot.org a "non-profit" organization...

Trademarks

[ces]

Hmmm ... I'm guessing that FedEx mostly has a problem with his domain "fedexfurniture.com".

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.

What Slashdotting?

[alienfluid]

I don't know about you guys but I don't think the website is showing any signs of being Slashdotted. It's fast and zippy even after over 300 comments - must be heck of a server.

Oh, if I were UPS right now..

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

I'd pay this guy to replace all his furniture with UPS boxes and come out looking like a hero!

Oh yeah, I should go into PR!

If I was UPS....

[cyberassasin]

I would offer to help him and send him all of the packaging materials he needs..... You couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

New UPS Commercial: "What can Brown do for you? Help you stick it to FedEx and furnish your apartment...."

Oh snap!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

FedEx is clearly a not for profit organization because they have fedex.org!

Hey, FedEx, /cry about it.

W-i-i-i-lson!!!

[carrier lost]

Can't make a raft out of 'em, either, I'll bet.

MjM

Re:FedEx likes their TM

[alteridem]

It looks like in the end they did not have to change their name. If you read the conclusion of the ruling;

"Having considered all of Federal Express's contentions on this appeal and having found in them no merit except as indicated above, we see no basis for reversal. The order of the district court denying a preliminary injunction is affirmed."

Re:while tenuous

[zerOnIne]

actually, .net was originally for routers, not ISPs.

furthermore, such a strict categorization makes for some interesting questions as to where things ought to go. for example, let's say i've got a band that i don't make any money off of (and is therefore not a commercial entity), but is certainly not a "non-profit organization" in the traditional connotation.

there are thousands more examples of cases that don't quite fit into the simple categorizations that were first envisioned with the TLDs. people have a

Re:while tenuous

[xnderxnder]

"If you aren't commercial, you should be denied .com. If you aren't a non-profit, you should be denied .org. If you aren't an ISP or other infrastructure provider, you should be denied a .net."

And while you're at it, presuming you're an american, why not use your darned country TLD.. .com is a global namespace, no? .. sanity indeed