Did Amazon Force Takedown Of Firefox Pirate Extension?

from the why-bother? dept

Earlier this week, we skipped on writing about the rather silly release of a Firefox user script that would add links to popular torrent trackers for unauthorized downloads of products as you surfed Amazon.com. The whole thing just seemed likely to get folks (on all sides of the debate) riled up. In fact, if anything, I thought the rather amusing response was a separate user script that did the reverse. If you were surfing torrent sites, it would link to Amazon for purchase.

However, now there are reports that Amazon.com has sent its lawyers after the original. It's possible that they have a trademark claim, as the folks behind it used the name "Pirates of the Amazon," and the overly aggressive trademark lawyers will (incorrectly) claim that Amazon needs to send a cease and desist to protect its trademark. In reality, that's only true if the name is being used in a way that's likely to cause confusion, where people might actually think that Amazon supports this. That seems quite difficult to believe.

The end result, though, is that this silly little script is now getting extra attention, and is (of course) still widely available for download at a variety of other sites. If Amazon had just let it be, this would have probably been an amusing little bit of nothing. Sure, some hardcore file sharers would use it, but they're not going to pay for content anyway, so what difference does it make? Update: The folks behind it are now claiming it was an art project to see how people would react. Not sure I believe that, but okay...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    ehrichweiss, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 10:26am

    Streisand...

    yeah, I hadn't read about this until now but now, thanks to the linked article, I found a backup copy of the .xpi. It doesn't link to a lot of the stuff I actually look for but it will be useful in the near future to be certain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DS, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 10:39am

    I think that they could make a case that people might think that it's authorized by Amazon in some way. Either way, the people behind this script really went too far.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 10:55am

    How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

    Let's see. They named a add-odd program "Pirates of the Amazon" that is specifically designed to work on the Amazon site and alter the Amazon page to show a link to pirated version of what the user searched for on the Amazon site.

    This has nothing to do with whether someone might be confused that Amazon supported the application, but chose to create essentially a product that would directly target and compete with Amazon and name it with the word "Amazon".

    Seems like a clear cause of action (if, indeed, Amazon took the trademark route, which is entirely unclear from the lined Wired article) to me.

    Pirate Bay would also have a clear cause of action if they trademarked their name and logo (not that they'd do it of course). Come to think of it, even though the coders claim they're not affiliated with Pirate Bay, Amazon might even have cause to include Pirate Bay in any legal action.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      hegemon13, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:12am

      Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

      Well stated. It seems that, lately, Mike thinks all trademark suits are bogus. This is about as clear an example of trademark infringement as you'll find, short of someone opening a book and movie site called Amazonian.com.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Matt, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:18am

        Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

        Really, hege?

        Tell me how you could confuse pirates of the amazon with amazon?
        Even better yet, tell me how this can apply to something that is not for profit nor a consumer product? Trademark is not just for if things are similar.
        What if it was something else? Would you confuse the amazon river with the amazon website? We'd better take that down too, then.
        Does it say "sponsored by amazon?"
        would you mix up amazon.com with deliberately downloading something that goes to another site?


        Piratebay has 0, absolutely nothing to do with this. It wouldn't be any different if they linked to other torrent sites. I might add that piratebay is not subject to the US jurisdiction and you can preach all you want of how ohhh big nasty piratebay, but in reality it's under Sweden's rule. Take that into account before you shoot a bunch of crap on techdirt.

        The only reason this would even go under trademark is because it would have even LESS standing if they did it under some sort of patent/copyright issue.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          nasch, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 2:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

          IMO a moron (remember, moron) in a hurry could absolutely think that Pirates of the Amazon is affiliated with Amazon.com in some way. It sounds like something a court could look at, except for the fact that it would be far too expensive for the developers to try to defend themselves. A major problem with our legal system.

          Claiming that TPB would have a valid trademark suit seems ludicrous though.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 3:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

            Claiming that TPB would have a valid trademark suit seems ludicrous though.

            Why? "Pirates of the Amazon" used a likeness of the Pirate Bay logo. I'm not saying that TPB would have any interest in pursuing it, that's their decision. I merely noted that they would likely have a cause for action should they be so inclined.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike (profile), Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:20am

      Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

      This has nothing to do with whether someone might be confused that Amazon supported the application, but chose to create essentially a product that would directly target and compete with Amazon and name it with the word "Amazon".

      Trademark claims rely on "use in commerce." I think someone could make a pretty compelling argument that this add on is not commerce.

      Anyway, would you be okay with the same add on if it didn't use the word Amazon?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DS, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:58am

        Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

        Would I be OK with it? Still, no, but it think legally, Amazon would have a lot less to stand on if the name had not included Amazon in the name.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:14pm

        Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

        Just because someone isn't charging, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not commerce. I think Amazon could make a compelling case that since this is directly targeted to work on the Amazon site, it's a direct competitor using the Amazon name.

        If they didn't use the Amazon name, then Amazon wouldn't likely have any trademark case. I have no idea whether hijacking the Amazon page to potentially fool customers to go to a pirate site (where they could be open to other legal penalties for downloading unauthorized content) would open up the coders to other lawsuits. I'm guessing a clever lawyer could sue the coders for fraud.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Matt, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

          Are you a lawyer, sailor? I know the answer without you having to say it. It's called no, you aren't.

          Technically, you are giving legal advice without representing that you aren't a lawyer. You do realize the implications of this, right?

          This logic is in the same category as claiming that it's a trademark case. Make sense? Didn't think so.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

            Technically, I'm commenting on whether there might be a cause for action under trademark, echoing Mike's assertion that there might be a cause for action under trademark. No implication of giving legal advise.

            You are correct I'm not a lawyer, but I do have many years of experience dealing with copyright and trademark issues and I've been involved in some trademark cases, including sitting on a jury in a Federal trademark case.

            As others have posted, there might well be a cause for action under trademark in this instance. Whether such a suit would be successful is an open question, but it's not just me here who thinks that because the app was offered using the trademarked Amazon name, and designed to specifically work on the Amazon site a reasonable person could easily be confused as to whether it is an Amazon product. Amazon routinely offers users links to lower-cost used products that it also sells for a higher price new. Is it such a leap that someone seeing "get this for free" might think it's just an Amazon service or promotion?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      TPBer, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 2:55pm

      Re: How is this not a trademark infrigement ?

      And they would just put up another useless piece of legal toilet paper on their legal page.

      When are morons lawyers or wanna b's like yourself going to realize there is nothing that can be done to stop file sharing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:03am

    Drawing Attention

    Also wanted to address Mike's quite frequent refrain that companies that institute these kinds of actions are somehow harming themselves by drawing more attention to the issue and they'd be much "smarter" or better off just ignoring it lest they give the miscreants more publicity.

    Aside from the fact that ignoring instances of trademark infringement can trigger the loss of trademark protection (just as Bayer about aspirin), in most cases ignoring these problems will only embolden others and create more and larger problems. The publicity angle runs both ways: addressing the problem publicly and legally can usually discourage others from doing the same in the future.

    This is the RIAA's rationale, and while I deplore their bordering on illegal extortion tactics (which will hopefully be addressed by a court soon), the underlying rationale is still valid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike (profile), Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:22am

      Re: Drawing Attention

      Aside from the fact that ignoring instances of trademark infringement can trigger the loss of trademark protection (just as Bayer about aspirin)

      I addressed that in the post.

      in most cases ignoring these problems will only embolden others and create more and larger problems.

      Really? I've almost never seen that. Napster was pretty much alone in the market for years UNTIL the RIAA tried to have them shut down.

      And by "embolden others" what do you mean? If the only cause for complaint here is trademark, then what would they be emboldening? Others to use the word Amazon?


      This is the RIAA's rationale, and while I deplore their bordering on illegal extortion tactics (which will hopefully be addressed by a court soon), the underlying rationale is still valid


      Right, and how's that been working out for the RIAA? Oh right, disastrously.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:20pm

        Re: Re: Drawing Attention

        Actually, you address the point by dismissing it, and incorrectly, in my opinion. Would this Firefox add on cause consumer confusion? I think it likely. While you didn't raise the "moron in a hurry", that's not the legal standard anyway. The legal standard is whether a reasonable person could be confused by the use of the trademark. Unless the link the app placed on the Amazon page was clearly labeled as "not Amazon," a reasonable person could easily think it was part of the legitimate page.

        As for whether the RIAA campaign against downloads have been a disaster, you can't know that. How many people have heard about these cases and been dissuaded from downloading illegal content? That's what I mean by the underlying rationale. I deplore their tactics, but illegal downloads are illegal whether the downloaders are sued or not. They'd probably be better off with just an add campaign to that effect, but I can see where their legal counsel would push for some legal actions to reinforce the point.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          nasch, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 3:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Drawing Attention

          Actually it looks like they've fooled you, so maybe their campaign is kind of working. If I'm not mistaken, there's nothing illegal about downloading, it's uploading that can be copyright infringement.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 3:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing Attention

            Most cases are against people who downloaded the music, since it is at the moment of download that the illegal copy is made (see the Lindor case). RIAA has tried to make the case that anyone who merely provides access to a music file (even if that music file is legally owned) are also liable. The latter proposition has been partially ruled against and is, if I recall correctly, the subject of another ongoing suit. Merely providing the file is a bit of a stretch in a copyright infringement claim even under the DMCA.

            Making the copy is the infringement. If you upload a copy to a public site, that would constitute infringement; if you download, that would constitute infringement.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Matt, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:23am

      Re: Drawing Attention

      Sailor,
      when something becomes generic as aspirin has done, that is a good thing. Trademark is not forever, and is not intended to be forever. Same as copyright, these are olden terms that don't really apply to today's world as much as people would like them to.

      Trademark is not intended to stifle the world from making a product that even glances at the same name.

      People seem to misunderstand the "defend it or lose it" aspects of trademark law. If you don't defend it in every instance, you do not magically and automatically lose it. Otherwise every trademark in existence would no longer be valid.

      Instead, what companies do, is use it to stifle products and businesses, which is not profitable and not necessary. It's just a waste of legal fees and quite a gamble, too. This is something monster is learning slowly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re: Drawing Attention

        Also, trademark isn't about protecting property. Trademark law is about protecting the consumer. Any time you make an argument trying to claim how its hurting the property owner, you're pretty much abusing trademark law.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Drawing Attention

          It's about protecting both the consumer and the owner of the trademark. Protecting the "property owner" is clearly a goal of trademark law, not an abuse.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re: Drawing Attention

        Matt:

        It may or may not be a good thing. Certainly companies with such brands as Kleenex and Xerox are fairly aggressive about protecting their brand names, even if most people use these terms generically. Where it might be a good thing is that if people refer to all facial tissue as "kleenex," it serves to support the brand.

        As far as I know, as long as the trademark is in active use and the trademark holder acts to protect it again infringement, it does not expire. Can you point me to anything in the law that says that trademark is "not forever"?

        You are correct that you don't have to defend every possible use, but if you to sue and the defendant can show enough instances where you didn't protect it, you can very well lose protection. While there is clearly abuse (such as the "Monster" cable cases you mentioned, most companies are fairly careful to monitor and protect their trademarks.

        Trademark of a brand name does not stifle innovation, other competing products or businesses at all. If I sell a widget under the trademarked brand name "Bleen," you're still quite free to market and sell a similar widget...you just can't call it "Bleen."

        If a brand is well known, it is no waste of legal fees or a gamble to protect it, and in fact the opposite is true, you can loose the marketing value of the brand that give you an edge. This is not about not competing, but why should a business not protect whatever edge their branding provides in the marketplace?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Matt, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: Drawing Attention

          Really, sailor?

          Point me to where Trademark does anything good for the consumer. Also point me to how we'd be worse if the same product didn't have a trademark, other than what I said below.
          You do realize the reason for trademark is so that we don't buy X product to find out it's actually Y product right?

          There are ways to do this without expressing trademark. It's a common business practice called crosslisting. Look into it. It's why there are really only 3 or 4 manufacturers of products in general, but it's more important with a physical product. For intangible products it's not so important, take a look at the limewire program that was taken over by the riaa and rebranded.

          For your comment of "ou are correct that you don't have to defend every possible use, but if you to sue and the defendant can show enough instances where you didn't protect it, you can very well lose protection.", I'd like to see some proof. I know that is the statement of trademark, but I don't hear of it being applied too often if ever, and not due to vigorous legal efforts either.

          Trademark is not forever because companies simply don't last that long. Some of the oldest companies are over 100 years old and trademark hasn't even been around that long. In the same intangible sense as patents, it won't last. Also the longer a product remains in the market eventually it will become generic if it essentially becomes a word.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing Attention

            You do realize the reason for trademark is so that we don't buy X product to find out it's actually Y product right?

            I guess I don't have to point out where trademark does something good for the consumer, you've done it for me. It protects the consumer against fraud and deception from goods that are represented as being from a know source, but are not. This is actually in the statute.

            There are ways to do this without expressing trademark.

            I'm sure there are, but branding (and the legal protection provided by trademarks, service marks, etc.) is a core part of marketing and business. It has nothing to do whether a product is tangible or intangible.

            I'd like to see some proof. I know that is the statement of trademark, but I don't hear of it being applied too often if ever, and not due to vigorous legal efforts either.

            Sigh. Proof is that it's part of the statute. To quote: "When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark."

            This is why "aspirin" is no longer protected as a trademark. It's also why companies like Xerox advertise in media-oriented publications not to use the word "Xerox" as a verb or noun instead of "photocopy" or "photocopying". Not all protection efforts are high-profile court cases. In most instances, a cease-and-desist letter and conferences outside of court settle these issues.

            Trademark is not forever because companies simply don't last that long. Some of the oldest companies are over 100 years old and trademark hasn't even been around that long. In the same intangible sense as patents, it won't last. Also the longer a product remains in the market eventually it will become generic if it essentially becomes a word.

            Fine. Trademarks are not "forever" as in "lasting until the Sun goes nova after all life on Earth is extinct." But that's a statement in vain search for an argument. It is more accurate to say that trademarks do not expire the way that copyrights or patents do. I'd predict it will last quite a while. As long as the company that owns the trademark continues to use it and acts to protect it, even if the word in the mark becomes generic popular usage, the trademark remains in force.

            As I noted above, people commonly use "xerox" as a verb ("can I get a xerox of that document?") and a noun ("sure, I'll make you a xerox on my Ricoh(tm) copier.") as well as referring to all facial tissue as "kleenex" ("can I get a kleenex out of that box of CVS facial tissue?" "No.") doesn't mean the trademarks are not still valid and in force. Those companies protect their trademarks, which is why no other facial tissue can be called "Kleenex."

            As also noted, I'm sure that Kimberly-Clark are quite happy to have the word in generic usage, since if consumers think of all facial tissues as "kleenex" they're more likely to recognize the brand when they go to buy facial tissue.

            By the way, Kleenex has been around since 1924 and there's no sign that they're going to lose trademark protection.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:24am

      Re: Drawing Attention

      I fail to see how this is a trademark violation? Is it for commerce? No. Is it in the same market segment? No. In fact, going after them on a trademark violation would only be able to force them to change the name, not get rid of the extension. This is a hail mary pass. They have no real legal ground to take down the extension. If the extension makers were smart, they'd just change their name.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pinky Floyd, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:32am

    I imagine that the people at Amazon is going to go the route of the biggest douchebags in history, Monster Cable, in probably now claiming that they now own the name of "Amazon" in every way form and fashion.

    I won't ever buy (they couldn't give me a set) Monster Cable, and now I won't buy from Amazon either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vince, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:32am

    Yarr! Pirates in the Amazon!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mslade, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:40am

    Correction...

    "In reality, that's only true if the name is being used in a way that's likely to cause confusion, where people might actually think that Amazon supports this. That seems quite difficult to believe."

    That's because you (appear to be) are a tech and law savvy web user. Every day your head is in this stuff.

    Now pull back to somebody's grandmother user their computer, which has FF + add-on installed, and seeing a link to get something for free from Amazon, even using Amazon's name, and thinking "Wow, if they're allowed to use Amazon's name it must be legit". Not that far-fetched, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      matt, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:21pm

      Re: Correction...

      Okay, how is this "technologically inept" grandmother supposed to install not only firefox but manage to dig up and find, download and install this addon in the first place, mslade?

      get real.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:36pm

        Re: Re: Correction...

        someone else, a grandchild perhaps, could install it without Granny knowing. If the app is packaged with an alternate Firefox product, Granny could download the whole thing without being technically adept.

        Actually adding such add-on apps is rather easy. My 87-year-old Mom has installed add-ons to her Firefox, but after getting burned once, she now asks me about anything she wants to add first.

        This is not so far-fetched.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Matt, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Correction...

          well, that wouldn't be granny now would it lost?

          Gee, you certainly are stretching for a what if here.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Correction...

            Matt:

            Don't go dissing Mom! She's not only a grandmother but a great-grandmother. (Not to mention a great Mom.)

            As others have noted, it's not such a stretch to think that an innocent white-haired grandma could use such an app installed by someone else. It's been the defense in a couple of RIAA infringement cases.

            The issue regarding trademark is whether said granny might be confused by the app such that she reasonably thinks it's an Amazon service.

            I'm not the only one who has suggested that this could be so, and would clearly fit trademark infringement.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        ToySouljah, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 8:50pm

        Re: Re: Correction...

        I was thinking the same thing, and the only way for her to "accidentally" use it at Amazon.com would be if her son or grandson installed it without her knowledge. That is kind of stretching it though...can it happen? Yeah, but the chances are pretty slim and the ones using it are well aware that it is not supported by Amazon.com.

        On a side note...I thought it was a new Johnny Depp movie....lol. j/k :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 11:52am

    A moron in a hurry would definitely confuse this with the real Amazon.

    Sorry, Mike, you lose. But I notice you didn't include the test this time...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Easily Amused, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:30pm

    the moron in a hurry test

    Re: #14 and #15,

    NO- a moron in a hurry would NOT confuse this... This is an addon tool that someone would have to go find and intentionally download to use.

    If you think that someone's grandmother would see a link to a torrent file and know what it is, and what to do with it, you must have a pretty savvy grandma.

    Anyone who knows what 'Pirates of the Amazon' means and does would know that it isn't Amazon and is not approved by Amazon. If you don't know what it means and does, you are going to be incapable of using it. It's not like it adds a download link to the item that just pops up a save button for the actual content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    wiggins, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:44pm

    moron in a hurry

    By the very nature of the moron being in a hurry, he wouldn't remember that 10 months ago he one of many extensions he has installed modifyied amazons site. It is also not inconceivable that the aforementioned grandmother had her teenage son install firefox for her and then installs the extension on her computer without her knowledge. Normally I agree with mike on these types of things but it is fairly telling that he didn't mention the 'moron in a hurry' test that he always trots out on these types of articles. It is not hard to see how something named *amazon, designed to work *specifically* with amazon.com; named so by the authors to indicate a clear link to amazon.com, does essentially piggyback off of amazon's trademark popularity

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 12:53pm

    Download link please!

    Yep. I am too lazy to find it myself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Dec 5th, 2008 @ 1:39pm

    Update

    Added to the story: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Amazon-Pirate-Firefox-Plugin-Was-Art-Project-99506

    The folks behind it claim it was an art project.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      LostSailor, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 2:05pm

      Re: Update

      "Art Project"! They "wanted to study the response to the app" Good one. Maybe it's even true! Though if they wanted to study the response to the app its sounds more like a social sciences project than an art project.

      Interesting to note that on the dslreports thread under the linked article that one post speculates whether this might also be a copyright violation because the app alters the HTML content of the copyrighted Amazon web page. Interesting idea.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 2:05pm

    Scripts

    Ha! The "Script Kiddies" ride again!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joe Barnhart, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 6:03pm

    Parody and Trademarks

    I submit that the "Pirates of the Amazon" is a parody of Amazon.com and is thus protected use under U.S. Trademark law. It's the same exclusion that allows Weird Al to sing songs such as "Like a Surgeon" without facing trademark suits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joel, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 8:42pm

    File Sharing

    If you're using a file sharing service to get your music, movies and entertainment, then why would you be shopping Amazon for music, movies and entertainment? That just sounds counter intuitive to the whole act of sharing files.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TEA-Time, Dec 5th, 2008 @ 9:35pm

    This should also be filed under Streisand Effect.

    Nice going, Amazon!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Doolittle, Dec 7th, 2008 @ 5:52am

    Temporal anomaly

    They don't "now" claim that this was an art project - they did so in their original statement, as reported accurately by TorrentFreak 48 hours before the DSLreports story. A shame Mike wasn't quite as assiduous in checking sources and statements, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Raymond J Warren, Feb 2nd, 2009 @ 12:16am

    Amazon De and Amazon.com

    What kind of dirty game are the big boys playing,Amazon de and Amazon UK seem to be having a whale of a time doing whatever they like to publishers and booksellers who are trying to sell their own products. Take the Book "Wildflower" The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story, it is a self-published book done by it's Author in Brisbane Australia. Amazon De took it upon themselves [obviously with parent company approval] to advertise the book for sale through themselves, not at the price fixed by the Author {#31.95 Australian or about 14 pounds UK] but at 3 Euros, gift wrapped for Christmas and delivery free. Now what kind of low bred company would do that to a self-published Author who only has the financial ability to print a couple of thousand copies at a time. What kind of viciously hungry from the sewerage gutter depths would try to stop a small time writer whose only book has found it's 15 minutes of fame? Why Amazon of course who else, they lay claim to being the world's largest on-line bookseller and no can lay claim to being a few other things as well. They did not have the decency to apologize for their stupid act nor for the conduct of their legal manager who tried to lie her way out of trouble. They have not even tried to explain why they have insulted the integrity of the Author and his book when some months before the book became extremely popular in England and Europe,the Author begged them to take over the selling of the book in England and on the continent. They refused him stating that he was not resident in the UK and would need to warehouse several thousand copies in England, have an English Credit card and English selling rights. So why did they advertise his book for sale when they had no possibility of getting stock? C'mon Mr Big Man of Amazon, tell me why you are picking an a self published book when you refused to assist in the beginniong, Has the book proven too popular since appearing on the Ray Mears show? What in hades has gotten into you organisation, will you be buying oil fields and attacking oil prices next?
    RayW1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Raymond J Warren, Feb 2nd, 2009 @ 12:17am

    Amazon De and Amazon.com

    What kind of dirty game are the big boys playing,Amazon de and Amazon UK seem to be having a whale of a time doing whatever they like to publishers and booksellers who are trying to sell their own products. Take the Book "Wildflower" The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story, it is a self-published book done by it's Author in Brisbane Australia. Amazon De took it upon themselves [obviously with parent company approval] to advertise the book for sale through themselves, not at the price fixed by the Author {#31.95 Australian or about 14 pounds UK] but at 3 Euros, gift wrapped for Christmas and delivery free. Now what kind of low bred company would do that to a self-published Author who only has the financial ability to print a couple of thousand copies at a time. What kind of viciously hungry from the sewerage gutter depths would try to stop a small time writer whose only book has found it's 15 minutes of fame? Why Amazon of course who else, they lay claim to being the world's largest on-line bookseller and no can lay claim to being a few other things as well. They did not have the decency to apologize for their stupid act nor for the conduct of their legal manager who tried to lie her way out of trouble. They have not even tried to explain why they have insulted the integrity of the Author and his book when some months before the book became extremely popular in England and Europe,the Author begged them to take over the selling of the book in England and on the continent. They refused him stating that he was not resident in the UK and would need to warehouse several thousand copies in England, have an English Credit card and English selling rights. So why did they advertise his book for sale when they had no possibility of getting stock? C'mon Mr Big Man of Amazon, tell me why you are picking an a self published book when you refused to assist in the beginniong, Has the book proven too popular since appearing on the Ray Mears show? What in hades has gotten into you organisation, will you be buying oil fields and attacking oil prices next?
    RayW1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Raymond J Warren, Feb 2nd, 2009 @ 12:23am

    Amazon De and Amazon UK

    Beg pardon for the double up, I am not a specialist on computer yet but I did learn to save things before people could delete what should not be there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Raymond J Warren, Feb 2nd, 2009 @ 12:41am

    Amazon De and Amazon UK.

    Oh yes, for those who wish to see how trade mark or copyright infringements can be done by the high and mighty, read these while I weep. The below material is just a sample of Amazons web headings and just a little of the page
    On the book "Wildflower" The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story [Google to see more, click on Telstra big blog] Note that they use the Synopsis, the ISBN and anything else that takes their eye. When will they send an apology for this kind of Infringement?

    · Wildflower: The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story: Raymond J. Warren ...
    - [ Translate this page ]
    Wildflower: The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story: Raymond J. Warren: Amazon.de: ... Verkauf und Versand durch Amazon.de. Geschenkverpackung verfügbar. ...
    www.amazon.de/Wildflower-Barbara-Crawford-Thompson-Story/dp/0646490931 - 172k - Cached - Similar pages



    The below placed some 28 days after the page was posted, it took them from December 26th to December 29th 2008 to take their dirty hands off my book.
    Sie suchen nach etwas Bestimmtem? Looking for something specific? Tut uns Leid: Die Web-Adresse, die Sie eingegeben haben, gibt es auf unserer Website nicht. Sorry: The Web address you've entered is not on our website. Zur Amazon.de Homepage To Amazon.de homepage

    Sie suchen nach etwas Bestimmtem? Tut uns Leid: Die Web-Adresse, die Sie eingegeben haben, gibt es auf unserer Website nicht. Zur Amazon.de Homepage


    Below is the product description they used on their page which has been saved on a word document as evidence of their transgression.

    Product Description
    Synopsis
    This book is the true story of Barbara Crawford, a young Scottish girl who was hired out as a domestic servant in March 1843 along with her two older sisters, Mary and Ann. All three girls were sent their separate ways and disappeared. Barbara surfaced in October 1849, living alone with headhunters in the Torres Strait at the northern tip of Australia. For 160 years, much erroneous information has been used to tell her story; now, for the first time, the truth of her dramatic tale is told..

    Amazon have been asked several times for a reason as to why they would do this and they have refused to reply. Well they know that a single entity cannot fight what they have done in the courts because of the cost. Well, I will go on telling the computer world until I get a reason and an apology from Mr Big Man Amazon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Raymond J Warren, Mar 24th, 2009 @ 7:54pm

    "Wildflower" The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story

    Dear AMAZON, thank you for all you are doing for me in the UK and the continent, soon I will be able to run off the second and final revised edition.
    I will let you know the publish date so that you may correct the free advertisement you are doing for me on AMAZON UK.COM and AMAZON DE in Germany.

    I am now pleased with your efforts because you have taken the price from my comments on my first email above and placed the 14 pounds on your advert as the price for my book.
    The problem for you, of course, is that you have no stock as you already state in your book description.

    Don't worry, I am happily sending signed copies to email purchasers in the UK, Canada, the United States and on the European continent without any problems at all and if it were not for you, many people would be bying from you rather than direct from me.

    Please buy out some more book sellers and use them to advertise my book as you are already doing with several other booksellers in England.

    Also can you please let your public know that they can contact the Author direct on ray.j.warren@hotmail.com and I will arrange for signed copies to come their way at the $31.95 Australian delivery free anywhere and personally signed by the Author.

    May I state that it is jolly decent of you to feature my book, it's cover and my ISBN with my own personally written Synopsis, its a pity that you don't have a good forger on hand to copy my signature. But then of course you would have to pirate my book would you not?

    Should I have known that you would be doing this for me, I would certainly have supplied you with more material to go on. I do believe that you should rid yourself of Sabine, she has proven to be a liar by denying that your company was using odd tactics to try and get rid of people trying to sell their own works on the internet. Her liar-ability can be seen by looking at your adverts for my book surrounding my blog page.

    I don't believe that my book sales can be hurting you too much, I am the one who has to package and parcel each sale because of your relentless free advertising. Space permitting, I should dearly liked to have placed many of the wonderful things my readers are saying about my book right here for you to see. You will note that my anger at you temerity has ceased and that is simply because you have increased my book sales and I hope that you will continue to do so, remember that I begged you to take over the selling of my product in May 2008 and you treated me like a minnow, now who is smiling Mr Barracuda!

    Thank much, it is all due to your free advertising that people all over the world are finding out about a history mystery that has been solved after 160 years.
    Regards
    Raymond J Warren
    Brisbane

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Raymond J Warren, Mar 25th, 2009 @ 5:32pm

    AMAZON UK.COM

    Dear Amazon, as you have quickly removed your heading from near my Blog Site, I thought that it might be better if I simply left the URL for my book on this page so that all will be able to see your wonderful advertisement. URL is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field
    keywords=Wildflower+T he+Barbara+Crawford+Thompson+Story&x=21&y=13
    I must say that it is Jolly professional, all of my book details and my Synopsis without the rights to advertise my book. Why have you simply not made contact with me, I have supplied you with my email. I really do understand that you want to market my book and as a self-publisher of my own product, I would like that too but you must remember all the reasons why you would not let me market it through AMAZON UK.COM, I would need far to many British rights, credit cards and banks in England. Well I can tell you now, all you have to do is bring a contract and I will [maybe] let you print and publish it for me. Your agent should be well dressed with leather knee inserts [we do not want him to ruin his trousers whilst begging]and then perhaps we can do business.

    Frankly I am only contemplating this because to me, your modus-operandi stinks, it has no commonsense at all with your silly attacks on tiny self-published Authors. So far everyone in your operation that has contacted me has been low on the business sense scale and high on liarbility.
    Can't wait to hear from you soon.
    Raymond J Warren
    Brisbane

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This