Circuit City lawyers complain about ad prices posted in DVD Bargain Forum.
 

Okay, so they've made a complaint, and the thread has been locked. What does this mean? Speedy can no longer post the ads from Circuit City?

Speedy is not doing anything, but, giving these places more publicity. I don't see anything wrong with it. If Circuit City wants to be so stupid, then, I say don't post their stupid ads. I simply don't shop there, anyway. Even more reason for me not to shop there, ever.

I just feel that we shouldn't have to bow down to these lawyers, when nothing illegal is being done. We get the prices a little earlier. So freaking what?!

This really makes me very angry, and I hope that this comes back to bite Circuit City, and their lawyers, in the rear!

Who cares what Circuit City thinks?
They can't even make a damn ad without screwing it up..

Amazing that they have enough money to hire lawyers to look around for stuff like this that does nothing but promote their store, but they can't hire a guy to man the checkout stand so I can checkout like a normal person and not have to go to the freaking customer service desk to buy something.

I wonder if this is fallout from speedy's posts a few weeks back breaking the PS3 pricedrop news... I remember a lot of publicity from that.

Most likely

I have no interest in CC's prices anyway. As long as we get Target's and BB's ad. I don't see where Speedy ever scans the ad anyway. I'm not sure I'm clear how one copyright's the price of something in a sales ad.

If this is true, I would never shop at CC again. I can't imagine that it is truly copyrighted material.

BTW I'm certainly not trying to attack Geoff here, he needs to run the site the way he sees fit. I don't think CC have a leg to stand on here though.

The funnies thing is I think its clear most of us would never set foot in a CC if it were not for Speedy's ads. And given the way CC have handled their 'sales' lately, it may not even be worth it.

I feel as though they are just throwing lawyers at the issue to intimidate the owners/mods into locking threads.

Also, only 1 CCity ad was locked. Why?

Yeah the only thing that could be considered copyrighted would be the ad scans, which Speedy never posted.

It's not like I needed another reason not to shop at Circuit City. But there it is! You can say all sorts of nasty things about Best Buy but at least they put product out on release day, have more of a clue about whats actually on their shelves (its all relative), and utilize a checkout system that makes sense. Oh, and they don't threaten legal action against Speedy!

...yet... though I hope you're right.

Don't they already do the same with Black Friday ads, which aren't allowed to be posted here?

In the past Best Buy would get all my business..100% of my $ went into BB bank..
with Speedy's post Circuit City started getting about 25% of my hard earned cash..

IF Speedy can not post CC's info, I'm going back to BB.. Cause if I don't know what specials CC has I'm not wasting my time going out of my way to their store!!

this is not a rant.. its the truth... His posts were helping their sales...

Let me state up front that I'm NOT defending CC but stating what I've observerd in the past concerning "sale ads".

Quite frequently the information in a "sale ad" is considered a "trade secret" due to not wanting the competition knowing the sale prices and thus undercut them to take/steal business. Nothing gets the ire of a vendor up more than the early publication of sale prices. Just look at the furor the "black friday" ads get.

In the case of CC and their current price guarantee I can see this being even MORE sensitive for the simple fact that knowing the sale price of a product a week or two in advance I can purchase it at regular price and then when the ad comes out get a refund for the difference PLUS 10%. While it's not really worth messing with something like a $10 DVD it CAN be worth it with higher priced merchandise, such as a PS3 or Wii that gets a significant price drop or a TV that goes on sale for 30% off, etc. Taking these issues into account I can see CC getting upset.

I hardly ever shop at CC because their employees are nothing but arrogant SOBs in mine, but the few times I would've gone there, I'll now go to BB and pricematch.

:sad:

I could understand CC being mad if they had a store exclusive price drop..
the PS3 $$ drop was USA wide..

as far as having a competitor knowing the sale ads a week early.. each store chain has set their price in stone well before 1 week left.. the ads have to be designed & then printed & mailed to the stores before the due Sunday..

I stopped shopping at CC a while back because they never had anyone at the checkout counter. I always had to look for someone to take my money or go to the customer service desk. I'd rather pay a dollar more at BB for the convenience of no waiting.

I guarantee I'll never buy another product from CC. Their pisspoor employees and completely outdated way of doing business have pissed me off for long enough. Those early ads were the only reason they ever got any business from me.

CC can f--- off as far as I'm concerned.

Also, f--- CNET and Gamespot for most likely being the catalyst in this debacle for their story on the PS3 price drop.

It seems like many of the people who saw Speedy's post about the PS3 price drop at Circuit City predicted that Circuit City would react this way and that Geoff would respond as he did.

I blame neither.

It's best when posting anything that could be considered a trade secret to keep a low profile. Speedy has not. He knew the risk. I'm glad he'd done so for so many weeks and I'm sorry he got stopped. Do I wish that he had left out the PS3 info from that one posting, especially when warned by other people? Yes.

Disgusting news.
I'm curious to hear how speedy plans to handle this?

FWIW, my company (not CC) considers things like upcoming pricing or products as proprietary, private information, and one can be fired for releasing it if you're not allowed to or if it's at the wrong time. Pricing information, especially timelimited and competitive sales, such as in these ads, could be considered the same.
I like seeing the ads/prices, and I'm not a fan of ambulance chasing lawyers, but i think they are well within their rights to ask this.

That is just retarded.

So, could someone, just post hypothetical ads for some store called "Cardboard Castle"? who just happens to have the same stuff on sale, for, say, ohh, 1 cent more?

Good job CC, you've lost more business. You can keep your dump bins and garage sale store layouts.

Yea, I'll never shop at Circuit City again. I won't be missing anything. It's not like they ever have any product in!

The 'trade secret' reason makes a lot more sense than the 'copyrighted materials' one, at least.

In theory, I don't see how that could be a problem. Being that it is hypothetical and all. With some satirical sprinkles on top for good measure.

Or speedy could guess what their prices might be. Speedy owns the copyright to his own mind, doesn't he?

Proprietary, private information does not mean it is copyrightable information. You can't copyright facts, only creative expressions. Just like the phone company cannot copyright the listing of names and numbers in their phonebooks, a company can not copyright its prices past, present or future.


They are certainly well within their rights to ask DVDtalk to censor speedy. Hell, it's within MY rights to ASK DVDtalk to censor speedy. But it is also well wtihin DVDtalk's rights to say, "NO."

Don't expect DVDtalk to stand up to CC though - CC has more money to blow on lawyers than DVDtalk does, and even though barratry is illegal, that's exactly what CC is threatening here. Plus, DVDtalk is getting to the point where it benefits from the "kindness" of studios - if the retailers complain to their suppliers enough, DVDtalk will start to get disfavorable treatment from the very companies it depends on.

PS - all you people proclaiming how you will flock to Target and BestBuy - just give it a few more weeks, their lawyers will make an appearance too.

I knew I shouldn't have posted that pic of Lohan. :(

Didn't FW tell Wal-mart to fuck off a couple of Black Fridays ago when they tried the same crap ?

PRICES are not copyrighted material, and Geoff should stand up for the forum.

Oh and one more thing -

FUCK YOU, CIRCUIT CITY.

This is bullshit. He isn't posting images of the ads and he has signed no agreements to keep the ads confidential. You can't tell me that I am not allowed to write about something I read. I'm sick and tired of seeing fair use trampled because people are scared of lawyers and their bullshit. There is nothing wrong with him typing out of list of things he read in an ad just because they want it kept secret. They can go after him if they want and fire him if he is an employee, but they can not sue me because I read their add early and talked about it on a forum.

Now that Geoff has backed down you can expect many more lawyers to make appearances.

I don't see why ads for any of the stores are allowed to be posted in advance since the same thing isn't allowed when it comes to Black Friday ads.

People also better delete their pictures of their dvd collections. Just like speedy doesn't have the copyright to the ads he got info from, we don't have copyrights to take pictures of our dvds...

OMG M I RIGHT~!

Why is Black Friday blocked either? As long as no pictures of the ads are posted there is nothing wrong with typing out a list of things you happened to read in the ad. Again, CC needs to find out how the ads are leaking out of their stores and stop it, but they can not sue a website for allowing members in a forum to talk about things they read.

Another thing. It wasn't illegal to talk about the Harry Potter book when it came out early. Isn't that the EXACT same situation?

How far in advance would constitute a violation? There was (probably still is) a FREE neighborhood newspaper in my area that would include a Best Buy ad with it beginning every Wednesday afternoon. The ad would be for the upcoming week. It would be available to anyone picking up that paper. A few months ago I discovered another FREE paper that included a Target ad for the following week. The earliest edition of Sunday papers where most of these ads are distributed begin a full 24 hours early, on Saturday mornings.

Bs!!

Yes. Exactly the same. You can go after someone selling the book early because you have a contract with them to prevent it, but you can not punish the people who got it early for talking about it and giving away secrets. Circuit City needs to stop printing ads early or get over it, but they definitely need to stop trampling on first amendment rights.

There is no copyright or DMCA rule that prevents someone from telling you what was in an ad they read. None. That is all Speedy is doing on the forum. He isn't posting pictures of the ad or even typing out the entire ad in detail.

Can we have a little clarification here? Is Speedy (or anyone else) prohibited from posted their prices in advance or at all?

Personally, I can live with them not being posted in advance. Knowing what the price will be in a week or two does nothing for me. But if I could still find out on a Saturday (since a lot of "Sunday" papers come out on Saturday afternoons) or Sunday what that week's prices will be, that would be enough to satisfy me. Two days is enough for me to make purchasing plans.

If they're not allowed to be posted at all, then that's a different story. I have 3 Best Buys and 3 or 4 Targets closer than the nearest Circuit City anyway and could easily stop shopping there.

hahahaha... wow.

i ONLY shop at CC when i see something good in Speedy's post.

i like to prepare at least two weeks ahead of time so i can FREAKING BUDGET for my purchases!

the single biggest reason i walk into Circuit City and allow them to scan my credit card for merchandise is b/c i knew from Speedy that it was the best choice for me that particular Sunday.

now i'm just going to avoid them and go with the 2nd best deal to whatever they have.

lawyers are insane. they just seriously don't understand the intertubes, or how they can benefit from them. i get their argument, i just think it's laughably anachronistic and basically retarded. no offense to people who don't like the use of that word, but in this case - it fits.

If it's legitimately in an available paper, it's "open source".
I don't understand the "copyright" argument.
I do understand the "trade secret" argument. What promotional price I'm selling Product X for in three weeks is "private" and a trade secret. Someone leaking that is either a. likely violating his company policy or B. "stealing" information he's not "supposed" to know.
Again, IANAL, there may or may not be legal precedent to this, I don't know if "trade secret" is legally protectable...but "Hey, stop releasing our proprietary information that isn't supposed to be leaked out yet" is a perfectly valid request.

Wal-mart backed down on similar threats:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-976296.html