Misleading Web Page Cons Conference Organizers 64
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The New York Times has a story about how an anti-trade group conned a trade conference into
inviting a talk from a member
using a page at www.gatt.org that looks like a legitimate WTO/GATT page with a bogus e-mail link to the
WTO's director-general. It seems like domain hijacking to me, but the real WTO 'respects the nature of the Internet' and is playing it cool. Funny for those amused by pranks and hoaxes." (Yes, it's the New York Times, so no-login URLs will doubtless soon appear.) I must admit, this made me think about from which misleading domain names it would be coolest to receive such misdirected mail.
Democracy (Score:1)
SFPCC (Score:5)
In an effort to help the Open Source trolling community, the Slashdot First Post Compensation Commission is prepared to offer you one US dollar.
All you have to do to claim your payment is e-mail us at sfpcc@hotmail.com [mailto] with the address to which you would like your compensation sent.
This offer only valid for US mailing addresses. Please allow 2 - 3 weeks for delivery. Please include in your e-mail a link to your first post.
shoulda known better (Score:3)
"These electorates, always reluctant to adopt the rational thinking of the free trade extremists (who have, after all, proved their worth by being the world's wealthiest people, or hired by same), are the only real obstacle to the kind of progress and development that is considered most likely to benefit all."
"Does free trade mean a high growth rate?
There is no evidence at all that it does. There is evidence it does not..."
"Does free trade mean a better standard of living?
During the last thirty years, the U.S. market has been "opened" and deregulated more, and more quickly, than that of any other developed country. But the average hours worked per year in the U.S. increased greatly between 1980 and 1997, while in every other developed country but one, they declined. Compared with 1973, Americans must now work six weeks more per year to achieve the same standard of living--and not surprisingly, Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with their lives...."
"The WTO's purpose is to broaden and enforce global free trade. Global free trade already gives multinational corporations vast powers to enforce their will against democratic governments. Expanding these corporate powers--as the WTO intends to do in Seattle and beyond--will further cripple governments and make them even less able to protect their citizens from the ravages of those entities whose only aim is to grow richer and richer and richer."
etc.
BTW, if you haven't already, read the story at the NYT, it's really hilarious.
problem not unique to internet (Score:2)
Congrats to the WTO on having a sense of humor. Is there anyone that doesn't love this stuff?
P.S. "bunny burgers" [devilbunnies.org]
Re:problem not unique to internet (Score:2)
They don't really have a sense of humor. They complained bitterly about it not so long ago. Here [wto.org] is an earlier statement by the WTO... to which gatt.org responds on their website.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (Score:3)
--
Mixed feelings... (Score:5)
In this case, it seems the WTO is being cool about this website--which they can be congratulated on. This is, after all, the way it's supposed to work. On the other hand that website is getting close to crossing the very fine line between satire (one of the highest forms of humour) and libel, which is just lying about people.
I looked through the site, and these people aren't saying anything informed or intelligent...or even funny. There are legitament criticizism of many of the things the WTO has done...but these people don't seem to know what they are. There are funny jokes that could be made...but these people aren't making them. The WTO has done stupid things...but these people don't know what they are. There are flaws in some bits of the economic reasoning you could drive a truck through...but these people have no clue. The entire point of the site seems to be to confuse and mislead--NOT to entertain or convince.
As it happens, I agree with much (not all) of WTO policy. But I ALSO agree with the right for people to disagree. These people may or may not have the right message--that doesn't matter. But they aren't using the right method. I have a right to tell you what I think of Bush--I don't have the right to tell you I *AM* Bush.
How come it's always the cool sites that get slapped down?
208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com (Score:5)
Actually, the URL given (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/weekinreview/07 WORD.html)
is already a no-login URL, if your /etc/hosts or DNS nameserver is set up "correctly". Just be sure you have the following line somewhere in your /etc/hosts:
208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com
Don't click the link! (Score:1)
--
Re:208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com (Score:2)
http://208.48.26.217/2001/01/07/weekinreview/07WO
Re:208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com (Score:2)
At least they weren't throwing bricks... (Score:3)
Still, the later continuation of the prank with the, ahem, joke about the 'pieing' of the man turning out to have been a method for the delivery of botulism toxin... Biological warfare; of course, they are only joking, right? Still, as real-world pies in the face have become a popular mechanism for delivery of some subversive shaming dissent [or, to be more honest, of symbolic violence. Of demonstrating to someone that you can get to them physically, and that your ilk might not always be only packing a meringue to assult them with].
---
man sig
---
Re:GOATSE.CX (Score:1)
WTO doesn't have much of a sense of humor... (Score:1)
Wow. (Score:1)
Man, I'm only reading slashdot at night if I can help it now; the WTO will never restrict my pancakes, right, ninjas???
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Practical Jokes... (Score:1)
Gatt people are fair (Score:2)
At least they were fair enough to take it as what it was : a joke.
--
WTO can't get the domain name back... (Score:2)
Wrong.
The four criteria which can construe "bad faith" are:
For the first one, they have shown no sign of wanting to sell the domain name, so that doesn't apply. For the second, AFAIK they haven't "engaged in a pattern of such conduct", so that doesn't apply.
For the third, the WTO isn't a competitor of theirs, so that doesn't apply. And the last doesn't apply because they aren't trying to attrack users for commercial gain.
So even though the domain was obviously registered in bad faith, none of the "bad faith" requirements are met, and the domain shouldn't be transferred according to the UDRP.
Of course, that hasn't stopped WIPO in the past...
Misleading domain name? (Score:2)
WIPO PRESS RELEASE - September 11, 2000
The World Intellectual Property Organisation, to improve commercial profitability, are to have a name and Internet site change. Formally WIPO, is now to be known as SWIPO. We can be found at our new site SWIPO.ORG [swipo.org].
We have the full backing of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO.GOV [uspto.gov]) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.ORG [icann.org]).
We are the first and most excellent of the arbitration services for ICANNs big business friendly process - the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Do not think just because we are part of the United Nations (UN.ORG [un.org]) that we are even-handed, therefore may rule against you. Being financed by big business - we know where our loyalties lie.
We are to shortly start an advertising campaign to inform of this name change, aimed at the corporate and celebrity world. We will guarantee to them with absolute certainty, that they we will get any domain name they covet - whoever already owns it. Unless owners have more money and power, of course. We can do this because of rationalisation, ridding ourselves of honest panellists in readiness for our Initial Public Offering in January 2001.
Do not use any of the other arbitration services - eResolution etc, even in the past we were the most successful in getting the name you want. We made the rules - we know all the tricks. We are the most powerful, growing daily, and can take whatever you want. Tell us the name; we will do the rest. Example: Paramount approached us a short while back, saying they would quite like CREW.com for their camera crews to use. We thought about it and came up with a winning excuse - Star Trek has the most famous crews of any ship on the planet (or off). We told them to hang on until after a smaller case for the name had gone through. It would be silly to turn down jCREW money.
We will push aside ALL competition, using the quote from Francis Gurry, Advertising and Publicity Executive, "Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best".
We deny all of the libellous slurs being put by our critics. WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] say we do not look after the interests of all trademark holders. It is a malicious lie; we follow a strict set procedure to make sure we do so:
1. We give domain to UDRP appellant, after their cheque clears.
2. We contact each trademark in turn, no matter how obscure or tenuous the link.
3. We offer them arbitration to take domain away from the new owner.
Case in point: After winning them JethroTull.com, told Tull about JT.com, which we just usurped for Japan Tobacco. Tull decided it was wanted; their money is as good as anyone's. We came up a winning argument; they are 'JT' to friends, all families and fans.
Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from our site at SWIPO.ORG [swipo.org].
"Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best"
Semblance of any the above to reality is purely a joke, as is the true state of affairs. All TM acknowledged. This has been written in the spirit of 'free speech' (you may have heard the expression). SWIPO is pointed to WIPO. If you want more of the truth (you be the judge), visit my site wipo.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]. You can see the answer to trademark problems there.
Wipo.org.uk and swipo.org have no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization. The above is considered and informed opinion.
Re:problem not unique to internet (Score:1)
BTW, I wonder if anyone has ever "crashed" a computer conference pretending to from Microsoft and gotten away with it? (Or for that matter, crashed a computer conference as a
Kierthos
Re:WTO doesn't have much of a sense of humor... (Score:1)
Sounds fair enough to me. What he said was, in essence: "These people are complaining that the WTO is not transparent (true). Not only is the WTO transparent (also true), the form of these complaints harms transparency (very definetly true)."
On the other hand, it wouldn't even be an abuse of the law (although the law probably should be changed--but that's a seperate issue) to do the "standard" thing, and sic a bunch of lawyers, writs, restraining orders, court orders, and so forth on those responsible. Other organizations have done it with less grounds--and sone so succesfully, over a more important issue, and with less public outcry than I judge they would get here.
All in all, I'd say the fact that the WTO disagrees with their critics is hardly surprising, or proof of anything. If they didn't disagree with them, they wouldn't be critics would they? But note that instead of sending in the heavies, they're talking about it. No, they don't like it (who would?), but I'm at a loss to think of anything BETTER they could do.
Misleading domain names (Score:1)
He had a barrage of CVs/happy birthdays to lucas@ilm.com before eventually ilm bought the domain back off of him.
Re:problem not unique to internet (Score:1)
I read this as
Re:Democracy (Score:5)
That's simple. The point of the WTO is a mechanism for "bargaining" down trade barriers--and enforcing the bargains, once struck. The US says that it will drop tarrifs on wine, if the EU drops tarrifs on beef, let's say. The US could unilterally drop tarrifs on wine and be done with it--but the WTO exists to allow the US to trade that drop for another one.
That's the main reason why countries want to be in--particularly developing countries, which are desperate for lower tarrifs on agricultural products and textiles. They know that the EU would never let their hugely pampered farmers suffer without good cause--the WTO is therefore their best best: If they're lucky, they can trade something unimportant to them (removal of restrictions on foreign ownership of telecoms, let's say) for something vastly beneficial--lowered tarrifs on those goods they export. It's not easy, even with the WTO--witness the current breakdowns (which have little to do with protests--rather, the developing countries are sore that the 1st world hasn't done what it promised last round yet). That's the choice a lot of countries are having to make--stay out in the cold, with no chance of ever having enough clout to get any important barriers lowered...or enter, and have a much better chance.
Finally, the WTO is there to enforce agreements, once struck (but don't forget it was YOUR politicians that first have to agree). Once the US has agreed not to ban tuna imports, it can't then turn around and ban them, however popular or worthy the cause now is. The fault is that of shortsighted politicians, not the WTO.
As an example, China has been working very hard to get into the WTO--despite the fact that it entails a massive shake up of their entire economy, and a real chance of political instability. Why are they so keen? Easy--it's the best, maybe even the only way, they can manage to remove the massive barriers that have been set in front of them--and China needs them removed very badly. China has a massivly growing population--either the economy at least matches it, or a nuclear power with the worlds largest standing army, several territorial disputes with other nuclear powers, and several rebellious provinces (one of which is ALSO nuclear armed, probably)...goes BOOM! No, I think we need to keep those peasents in poverty myself--fatter subsidies for the steel workers! What's that you say? Let them eat cake? I couldn't agree more!
Yeah right... You'll notice that the protestors wearn't Chinese. For that matter, the current head of the WTO is from NZ, population 3.5 million, heavily dependent on agricultural products, mostly wool, cheese, butter, and so forth. Not a particularly important country--which is why NZ is such a strong proponent of free trade. We don't ask for an advantage, we just want a fair go...which is why all my friends are as puzzled as I am about the protesters in Seattle. Fair trade? That's what the WTO is DOING.
negativland's new gig (Score:1)
check out http://www.gatt.org/fundintel.html [gatt.org]
C'mon... when you see the words "Intellectual Property Fund" and Negativland together, how can you take it seriously?
Spoofs & Legality (Score:2)
Now anyone can surely see any of the pages are made in good or bad taste depending on judgement, and many can say "They should have known better", should anyone have been technologically challenged to take anything serious, but people have to take into consideration that not everyone is a tech savvy
Should someone have intent to make money, misguide (for financial gain), or other ill motive outside of just typical fun poking of a site using a spoof then there should be some form restitution they should have the pay and the content be removed.
Coming soon, NSA Spoof
Home sweet home [antioffline.com]
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
1) special interests find it a lot easier to band together and lobby for privileges or corporate handouts/franchises (cough*Bono Act*cough) where the benefits are privatised but the costs are socialised
2) many states don't have a open/free capital market and bureacratic misallocation of resources can often lead to perceived dumping and lost opportunities
3) you are hitting many social gaps in beliefs and what is considered "property". For example, some people would consider that AT&T "stole" their logo from a Budhhist motif and claims of biopiracy have created resentment of pharmaceutical companies. You also enter some very subtle issues here (e.g.fencing of the intellectual commons in the genome map, appropriation of tribal marks e.g. tattoos for commercial PR gain)
4) a perception that the biggest sets the rules to suit themselves (you can guess who the instigators of the intellectual rights portion of WTO was) which causes a lot of resentment and ill-will (not to mention being prey on by more sophisticated financial manipulations). You try explaining pump and dump tactics on societies which don't really understand what a stock exchange is really for (hint
5) socio-economic discontinuities as the lossening of bonds betweeo corporates and workers lead to social stress
In short, the benefits are nebulous (although historically proven) and the downside is up-front, especially to marginalised unskilled labor who are suddenly faced with a couple of billion competitors. Traditionally governments have attempted to address this with the taxes of any increased economic activity to help disadvantaged groups but with globalisation, you can shift production base to exploit tax policy differentials (cough*transfer pricing + vertical integration*cough). In short, the traditional tools for balancing / redistributing social costs are inadequate in a multi-juristictional environment.
"Fairness" requires a common framework of values and ethics and the Western-centric notions of rational economism and property exclusion/rivalry don't always go down well.
LL
Re:Democracy (Score:2)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
They are not the good guys (Score:2)
Let me be the first to post it then:the WTO is not sueing these people because they could not possibly face any more bad publicity
The WTO is simply a cartel beyond the biggest of cartels that you can think of; they unite the biggest corporations (countries) to come to terms about resources and prices. Simple as that. Nothing free market about it. (As is most of capitalism is most western countries; they all start resembling communism in an eerie way by now).
Be afraid.internic.com (Score:1)
People would send him mail all of the time saying stuff like "I have to get my domain registered or I will lose my job!!!"
The best part of it all was that internic.net employees started referring trouble cases to matt at internic.com (obviously knowing that was not the correct site).
If you can scrounge up some old usenet archives, alt.pud had a lot of misplaced mail forwarded there.
hymie
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
Re:Democracy (Score:4)
Those would be the same organizations who employ millions of people, fund the machinery of state through corporate/employment/windfall taxes, and that your pension fund is invested in?
Things are not as black and white as the "anti capitalist" movement would have you believe. What do you suppose the world was like prior to globalization? The garden of Eden?!
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
In depth information about the WTO [zmag.org]
As for your generalization concerning the looting. Can you imagine 50,000 pissed off linux users protesting copy protection on Har drives on the streets of Seattle? Can you imagine an army of cops in battle gear who think that you are the epitomy of evil? Can you imagine 20 to 30 people out of the 50,000 misbehaving? That's what happened in Seattle. The media mischaracerized practically everything about the protests in Seattle in order to make the WTO look good. The thoughts and opinions protesting in the streeets where effectively marginalized by the focus on the few incidents of property damage. What if the seeds your family has grown for centuriesm were being patented by Monsanto and Backed by the WTO?
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Re:nonlogin nytimes... (Score:2)
NYT's online group just laid off 17 people. I wonder if it's because they aren't getting the revenues generated by selling the marketing info from those annoying registrations?
I doubt they'll change anytime soon, though now they're the only "registration required" login that c|net, Wired and Slashdot regularly link.
Re:Democracy (Score:2)
Point 1: Your right.
Point 2: Perceived, yes. In actual fact, it's kind of cool if an inept bureacrat decides to subsidize the production of my new stick of RAM...or the steel that goes into my new car. Of course, those resources probably would have gone somewhere more important (education, maybe), but I can't help that. *IF* we want to treat this as a "race between countries", then subsidizing exports is an own goal. If we want to look at total human suffering, it's pretty bad, but not buying it isn't the way to fix it.
Point 3: Not strictly speaking relavent. We are discussing ways and organizations to enforce and defend intellectual property rights. Perhaps it's more important to discuss what those rights are (or should be), but that's a very seperate issue.
Point 4: Yes, but... Yeah it does cause a lot of ill-will that the big and powerful set the rules to help themselves. The developing countries are not happy that the big countries try and force reforms on them, while refusing to swallow that medicine themselves. The protests in Seattle suited a lot of powerful people in suits. It didn't suit the WTO...or the developing countries, although they were fed up before then. No matter how you look at it, it's not good. If the protesters had the best interests of the powerless at heart (and knew what they were doing) they'd be arguing for complete and unilateral removal of all tarrifs, quotas, and subsidies. The US corporations would never agree of course--which tells you all you need to know about both the effects and the possability of it happening.
Point 5: Change hurts, yeah.
As for the benefits being nebulous, and the costs concrete... Agreed. But that's not REALLY the question. The question is, are the benefits bigger than the costs? And the answer is yes, by a great deal. A lot of economists have spent a lot of time answering this question (and others like it), and you can take it or not, as your opinion of economists and economics dictate. The fact is, lowering barriers to imports helps a country (and by more than it helps the trading partners, regardless of balance of trade). Similarly, export subsidies are bad for a country, although they do help the trading partners. Of course, in a democracy, more than a few politicians have found the political risks to be the inverse of the economic benefits...but that's a seperate issue.
You lose it when you come to taxation though. Don't forget where the benefits are--not with the corporation. The megacorps, by and large, LOSE from globalization. Subsidies in whatever form (and tariffs are a common form) act as a redistribution of wealth from the consumers (that is, the Average Joe) to the corporations (why do you think it's always the industrialists that lobby for protection? The steel mills that ask for protection from "dumping"?). Remove those barriers, and it's the consumers that benefit--and they can't dodge taxes by moving offshore without losing the benefits. Yeah, it's DAMN tough to see it--especially when those 100 factory workers are picketing and the 100,000 benefitting from the slightly cheaper goods (and the 100 million benefitting from the slightly springier economy) aren't... The corporations are a sideshow--not least because while they can indeed move, the shareholders can't.
Re:Democracy (Score:3)
"Globalization" in this context usually means the removal of barriers to trade, such as tarriffs. These barriers are artificial anyway, and were not usually erected for economic reasons. For example, a politician might impose a tax in imported steel in order to safeguard steelworkers in his/her own country. Sometimes this might be because the country wants to have steel production capability because it needs to be able to manufacture its own weapons, sometimes it's because the politician wants to votes of the steelworkers and their communities.
Doing so, however, screws the consumer by making them pay higher prices, since without competition the monopolies and unions can dictate their own terms, it screws the taxpayer, who need to pay for the subsidies, it screws trading partners (other countries) who can't sell their products (which may be cheaper or better) and ultimately it screws the beneficiaries, who find that as soon as the barriers are no longer effective, they've become too inefficient to survive.
I must add that this group and the other protestors are not anti trade per say but against trade deciions being made by a small group of men that aren't elected, behind closed doors.
I've seen the posters and the demonstrators. They're against capitalism, industry, trade, the monetary system, the whole works. They seem to think that if they just do away with the economy altogether, they'll be free to party their whole lives. Where on earth do they suppose their dole comes from?
Now, personally, I'm happy for anyone to live any lifestyle they want to. I'm just not happy about paying for it.
DJ Spooky, robots, and the Frontier Fund (Score:2)
From the description of one of the holdings (VRWR):
Not hijacking. Clever prank.Re: (Score:1)
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
Re:Ain't nobodies business (Score:1)
---
Differences in misleadings (Score:1)
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
The real fun is here (Score:2)
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
There are always barriers to trade, whether or not they are placed by polititians. There are natural ones like oceans and mountains, and there are normal variations in local economies. Plus there are differences in social policies that lead to differences costs of production. What the current wave of globalization aims to do is essentially negate past social policy aimed at improving workers rights, environmental protection, etc. Big (and some not so big) corporations don't like these policies because they are expensive and cut into corporate profits. But there are other consituencies that need to be taken into account. We need to look at what benefits society as a whole -- and that includes working people, students, unemployed people, etc. etc. whose interests don't coincide with those of the corporations.
You may have seen them, but you clearly don't understand them.
Re:Mixed feelings... (Score:1)
Whether you agreed with it or not, the eToys lawsuit had many similarities to this. The etoy site had pictures of toys on the front page, and kids were going there by accident, getting tricked by the toy pictures, and clicking around on the etoy site which contained various S & M pictures, etc. They refused to say something on their site about not being eToys (unless they were paid a hefty sum), so eToys took them to court to stop the complaints they were getting from parents.
Now these anti-GATT people are deliberately trying to dupe visitors into thinking they are officially represent an organization they have no affiliation with. I don't think they should be allowed to do that. They can parody or insult GATT, but this was no parody.
Re:208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com (Score:1)
Why do people get their panties in such a knot about not wanting to do a simple site registration. Fer pete's sake, I've been registered at nytimes.com for as long as it's existed (1994 maybe?). It's not like they're getting any more personal information out of me than if I actually subscribed to their PAPER newspaper. Actually, they're getting far less info than a non-web subscription.
So, do all these anti-registration cookie people also feel that I shouldn't ever subscribe to a magazine (paper, not electron), since that involves giving my name and address out? (Far more information than I gave away to register for nytimes.com)
Anyone noticed the Y2K+1 bug on NYTIMES page? (Score:1)
clever (Score:2)
Re:Democracy (Score:2)
Large corporations pay little, if any tax. For example, Cisco and Microsoft pay no federal income taxes [sfgate.com]. Cities and states fall all over themselves to give tax breaks to megacorps in the name of attracting jobs - instead of more sensibly and justly helping smaller locally-owned businesses to grow.
(And I try to make my own investing socially responsible, as best I can.)
And your point does not justify the way megacorps buy legislators like baseball cards.
It's not just about globalization - the removal of environmental, health, and justice considerations from international trade policy is a symptom of too much corporate power, not a cause.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:The real fun is here (Score:1)
That's odd, the prank you describe seems somewhat familiar. I think I read about it in a NYT article Slashdot linked to recently.
;)
Re:Differences in misleadings (Score:1)
This is a deliberate attempt by the "Yesmen" to incite you to think of the WTO itself as the ultimate con.
Incidentally, the reason Negativland, who have probably inspired 37.4% of the WTO protestors, got sued by their label SST was for putting out an album with the title "U2" and a picture of a U-2 spy plane on it, which used a sample from "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." Island Records sued SST for, supposedly, conning U2 fans into buying a Negativland record, and SST turned around and sued Negativland for getting them in trouble (I believe that's the legal term).
The idea behind this form of art/activism is that, every single day, people accept the Word of the corporations (and the multinational governmental organizations that support them), delivered through mass media. If you read gatt.org with suspicion, you should read wto.org with the same amount of suspicion.
Or so the theory goes.
Re:208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com (Score:1)
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
3) Not strictly speaking relavent
Taxation
So in summary, though the theory is nice, the details need serious attention to ensure that social responsibility is also globalsed as well as economic benefits.
LL
Re:WTO doesn't have much of a sense of humor... (Score:1)
Yeah, great, WTO can sic lawyers on their critics and abuse the legal system just like all the other big corporations. What swell guys they are for not doing that; lets give a medal of honor to any corporation or group that doesn't resort to SLAPP suits as a means of silencing individuals without the financial means to fight them.
Anyway, the point of my post was to point out the obvious, which has also been stated elsewhere - the WTO are not "cool;" they do not "have a sense of humor." They simply don't want the bad PR for suing their critics.
Re:Mixed feelings... (Score:1)
b) The GATT site is a parody. A work does not have to do pratfalls to be a parody. If you read it, you'll see it's a parody. The conference organizers obviously didn't read it - they just clicked the mailto link.
Re:Mixed feelings... (Score:2)
Only to avoid bad PR. Here's more about how they feel on the matter. [wto.org] Remember, it's a press release, with Fluff Value Added.
What have things come to when we congratulate corporations or mega-corp-organizations for not abusing the legal system with SLAPP suits against their critics? Shows you where the status quo has fallen to, and probably why groups like the yesmen feel the need to shake up the corporate hegemony somewhat creatively.
I looked through the site, and these people aren't saying anything informed or intelligent...or even funny.
Try reading it again. If you feel you have to read it too carefully to get it, then think how much more carefully people need to read the WTO's site.
Re:Mixed feelings... (Score:1)
Sounds like you never actually saw their site before the lawsuit. Yes, they were around before eToys, but at the time of the suit they were clearly aware of the confusion they were causing and loving it. They did their fake IPO thing as a joke about the eToys IPO, and had pictures of little plastic toys on their front page. Remember, the major achievement these guys are famous for is putting the word "playboy" in their META tags to lead people who searched for Playboy astray.
Re:Mixed feelings... (Score:1)
What do you mean by the fake toys? Sure, they've used those little lego-esque characters, but I wouldn't think those characters would make anyone think "Etoys!" except for the lawsuit situation. Toywar, obviously, uses all sorts of Toy references, but of course, it was all about the war with Etoys.
I think you're trivializing the work of etoy and even the Digital Hijack project itself by your reference to "playboy" in meta tags; there's a lot more to it than that; it's like saying the WTO is best known for putting unflattering pictures of Mike Moore on its website. :-) ... But even that isn't really important; I may not be a fan of all of the work of eToy, but they should certainly have a right to the website they were operating for years... the Etoys tussle had been going on for months before the actual suit hit, and Etoy did respond to it, but it was Etoys who threw the first legal punches.
Why are these people againts free trade? (Score:1)
Alice has produced 100 cups, which to her are worth only $1 each.
Total wealth of Alice = $100
Meanwhile, Bob has produced 100 plates, which to him are worth only $1 each.
Total wealth of Bob = $100
Alice has lots of cups, but no plates. She will pay $4 for a plate from Bob, because plates are not available where she lives.
Bob has lots of plates, but no cups. He will pay $4 for a cup from Alice, because cups not available where he lives.
Alice and Bob meet, and agree to trade. Alice gives 10 of her cups to Bob, and Bob gives 10 of his plates to Alice.
Alice now has 90 cups at $1 each and 10 plates at $4 each. Total wealth of Alice has increased to $130 (because $90 worth of cups + $40 worth of plates = $130)
Bob now has 90 plates at $1 each and 10 cups at $4 each. Total wealth of Bob has increased to $130 (because $90 worth of plates + $40 worth of cups = $130)
Both Alice and Bob had their wealth increased.
That's why Free Trade is so important.
Re:Differences in misleadings (Score:1)
But on first glance, one would not be reading gatt.org with suspicion. I don't like mass market companies that bend information or deceive in order to achieve profits. In response to the group Negativland, well, if you take something that is associated with another successful entity and take pieces of it without permission, don't be surprised when someone gets mad. It would have been more honest if the band U2 had been the group taking exception to Negativland's publication instead of a record label *cough*cartel*cough* doing it, but little guys do get stepped on by big guys when they get the attention of big guys, so if you don't call attention to yourself, you probably won't get burned at the stake.
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
Re:Democracy (Score:1)
Dumbass (Score:1)
---
"You just stranded one of the world's greatest leaders in San Dimas!"
Re:10 reason to oppose the WTO (Score:1)