Who Cut Off The Yes Men's Parody Website?
from the parody-is-protected-fair-use dept
A few weeks back, the media pranksters, The Yes Men, pulled off their latest prank. They got on stage at a gas and oil conference, pretending to be an ExxonMobil exec and a member of the U.S. National Petroleum Council and proceeded to pitch a new product called Exxon Vivoleum, which would be made from the remains of people who died due to global climate change. The two men were soon escorted off-stage and out of the building. No matter what your opinion is on the topic of energy companies or climate change, it was a pretty amusing prank. It got it's week or so of play in the news and on some talk shows and had started to fade away. However, now it's popping back up because someone (and no one seems to know who) has convinced the Yes Men's ISP to pull the plug on the Vivoleum parody site (via Slashdot). On top of that, the ISP is demanding that all mentions of Exxon be removed from the Yes Men's own website, or their email will be turned off. This, of course, would suggest that Exxon was behind the complaint that got the site pulled. If that's the case, then Exxon is overstepping its bounds. Parody is protected free speech (and Exxon's lawyers know this). Furthermore, simply mentioning the name of Exxon doesn't infringe on their trademark. Abusing intellectual property law to shut up critics can backfire badly. Already, this is causing the Vivoleum story to get added life after it had started to fade, and now it could open up questions about whether Exxon is abusing intellectual property law as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm a bit skeptical
...this is causing the Vivoleum story to get added life after it had started to fade...
Hmm. Who benefits? Call me cynical, but I'd sure hesitate to lay that one at Exxon's doorstep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Are They Not Breaking Laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Are They Not Breaking Laws?
Parody and impersonation is legitimate and protected speech. The Supreme Court of the US allowed that as well with the "Pretty Woman" decision.
That still won't make companies that find themselves a laughingstock avoid trying to stifle the speech that makes them look like fools. The lawyers do know better, but are being paid to "do something." The ISPs see a threatening letter from a lawyer and immediately do a song and dance. Sure, they're screwing their own customers, but they've got plenty of customers, so what's one pissed off customer? That's why ISPs turn over IP logs to the RIAA without even the benefit of a subpoena. It's easier to screw your customers than to take the time to tell the lawyers that they don't have a legal foot to stand on.
I guess that in the USA, screwing your customers doesn't hurt business. The RIAA have proved that many times over.
All that being said...
There's no "protected speech" on the Internet. The U.S. constitution is pretty vague on the concept of "online speech" and even the first amendment only applies its' free speech to guarantees that "Congress shall enact no law abridging" it.
An ISP can shut down a web site for any reason, whether it be the fact that it upsets a large corporation or that they use "too much purple" in their graphics. It's a contractual matter between the ISP and the customer, and the T.O.S. that the customer agreed to is almost always written to the benefit of the ISP. Excercise your "free speech" rights, and start looking for a new ISP.
The concept of a "free press" only applies to those that can afford the price of owning a press... find your own T-3 connection, a couple of peers that will route packets to you, and other logistical support, and then exercise your "free speech" rights.
Anything else on the Internet is there by the "good graces" of the people hosting the content... the ISPs or corporations that own the virtual real estate. It's capitalism at its most basic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How Are They Not Breaking Laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Are They Not Breaking Laws?
Pretending to be something is not illegal. Pretending to be a cop in the context of something real is illegal (but you can dress up in a cop costume all you want for fun).
Pretending to be a lawyer and taking legal cases would be illegal, or a doctor practicing medicine.
Getting up on a stage and saying a bunch of crap is not "impersonating" in this sense. It's potentially slander and definitely trespassing, but the slander is covered by 1st amendment parody and trespassing is normally a misdemeanor and Im sure they dont care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Are They Not Breaking Laws?
Just an opinionated bastard - not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, consult your physician or pharmacist before changing dosage, stir well and refrigerate after opening, wear eye protection at all times, for prevention of disease only......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All you have to do to know that for a fact is realize that we have had the technology for working, practical, fully electric vehicles since the late 90's.
We could have completely eliminated our dependance on foreigh oil by now, forget paying $4.00 / gallon.
Don't believe me ? Rent the DVD.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political speech should be protected
So for all of you above talking about first amendment rights, first realize that the event happened in Canada, where there is no First Amendment. We have a promise of 'free expression' but our common law still looks back 300 years and elevates right to reputation to dizzying heights. As a result, you can tell the truth and still be found guilty of libel. You can express an opinion based on fact, but still be found guilty of libel. Libel as a crime is actually still on the books in Canada and is still used!
There are no exceptions for political speech or satire or parody. You have no more right in Canada to publicly criticize the Prime Minister than you have to speculate on the inner-most personal secrets of your most un-public next door neighbor.
In Canada, libel law specifically calls for reverse onus to be applied, that is, you are guilty until proven innocent. Smart people and corporations looking to shut someone down forum shop to places like British Columbia and file libel lawsuits there. This means that even if you publish in the US, talking about an American personage, if that person can argue to have an interest in BC, they can sue you there and use the very low standard of libel.
In other words, it is possible to do a complete end run around your first amendment rights.
For a recent, real example, see this post on P2pNet:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12642
An entire blog on blogspot has been removed over an ongoing lawsuit concerning one post and some comments. What's really funny is that the blogger used the 'soylent green' phrae too!
The Yes Men *may* have fallen victim to forum shopping, given that their stunt was done in Alberta, which has similar libel laws to BC's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exxon vs Vivoleum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]