Walmart Wins

We have removed the slides.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. mopar_man says:

    Rapidshare? Yuck. The other site is down due to what I’m assuming is a bandwidth issue. Let me see if I can get the files I have together into a torrent and link it here.

  2. acambras says:

    Don’t worry, Ben. Just a small battle in a big war…

  3. stuflustr says:

    I really don’t see how it’s “an implied admission of illegality”. If anything, it’s an implied admission of potentially being steamrolled by the inexhaustible legal resources of Walmart. You’re just admitting that they may want you to take it down, not that you’ve done anything wrong. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve more than my share of the courtroom on tv and in the movies, and I say you get a second opinion. On the other hand, Walmart would eventually out-spend you into oblivion.

  4. nweaver says:

    Get a second opinion, say from the EFF

    That someone would WANT you to take it down doesn’t necessarily imply that you think its illegal, given the history of the DMCA’s use for chilling effects.

  5. Scazza says:

    Someone may want to host a torrent, or place it on a reliable swede/russian server. Linking isn’t a crime.

  6. LAGirl says:

    b@stards!

  7. Citron says:

    Damn!

  8. Uurp says:

    Took ‘em long enough….

  9. Skylar says:

    I’ve got the entire page saved on my hard drive. Wonder if they’re going to go RIAA on my ass too.

  10. cindel says:

    “an implied admission of illegality”? I don’t think so.

  11. robbie says:

    it would be money well spent for Consumerist to retain the services of a lawyer who would be willing to answer questions (from Ben and co., not the world) over e-mail rather than relying on random comment lawyers and the editorial staff opinion. the “post + our lawyer’s opinion” would make Consumerist posts a nice package.

    word?

  12. RandomHookup says:

    Wal-Mart always wins.

    It goes back to when Mr. Sam lost his Ben Franklin store in Newport, Arkansas, to my next door neighborhood. I don’t think they’ve lost since (except to Halliburton in the Worst Company contest).

  13. cp87 says:

    I’m pretty sure that you can’t make something illegal by saying you thought it might have been. It either is or isn’t.

    I think that you either owe us the cojones to fight it or a letter from your attorneys explaining to us why exactly you wouldn’t win.

    It sounds to me that Gawker media just doesn’t want to put up the fight.

  14. mopar_man says:
  15. mopar_man says:

    If that doesn’t work, that was my first attempt at making and posting a torrent so I may have screwed it up. *Shrug*

  16. Hey, I had a copy uploaded to my site (I wrote a bit on it after you guys did), so I have that graphic, plus I got the .rar from RapidShare and put that up for download from my page as well.

    http://www.puredoxyk.com

    …Along with an article explaining why I don’t think it’s illegal. ;)

  17. JoshuaH says:

    Here is a working Demonoid torrent, Its spreading there pretty quick.

    http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1063512/2178282/

  18. rachmanut says:

    This isn’t just a loss for consumerist. It’s a loss for snark.

  19. Rajio says:

    distributed file sharing FTW!

  20. muddgirl says:

    @cp87: Consumerist owes us someting? The Gawker empire owes us something? Like John Stewart says, it’s just entertainment.

  21. mac-phisto says:

    oh well. the slides were interesting, but i’m more interested in my own downloadable “how to opena quizno’s franchise” anyway!

  22. Terminixsux says:

    So, how many letters to these other sites, the torrent sites and so on will this generate? I don’t think you’ve really lost, as this will self-propogate just out of pure antagonistic glee. Walmart, will spend more on legal fees trying to chase this down than they ever would have lost by simply ignoring it. How’s that for a positive spin?

  23. r3m0t says:

    “Duly chagrined. Hard lessons learned for next time. There will be a next time.”

    You just admitted illegality for every document you post in the future, ever.

    The fact that I’ve just informed you of it probably doesn’t help.

  24. phrygian says:

    I don’t know why Walmart felt the need to pursue this. The knowledge of how they categorize potential customers isn’t going to give their competitors any edge over them. If I were a Walmart shopper and saw myself in that presenation, I would have just shrugged and gone on with my life — it wasn’t shocking or potentially disruptive.

    Really — were any of us surprised by their category descriptions? If you had asked a realitively-well-informed group of consumers to compose profiles of WalMart shoppers, they would have come up with the same conclusions.

  25. cp87 says:

    @muddgirl: Yes. We’re the consumers of their product. We’re the only reasons that their customers (the advertisers) bother to be their customers.

    Just entertainment? Yes. But the entertainment value, for me at least, is them standing up to the corporate powers.

    I’m not demanding a refund–I didn’t pay for anything. But if they won’t stand up to Wal-Mart’s goons, then I might stop reading. There is still a lot that I like about the Consumerist, and am not going to stop reading based on this one instance.

  26. Do2 says:

    I’ll think of you next time I don’t shop at Wal Mart. Oh, whoops, that’s everyday.

  27. kcs says:

    Sometimes you just gotta pick your battles. It costs time, money and resources to fight these things, and it may not be worth the expense in every instance. I’m not saying that it’s not worth the fight in this case, just that there is a cost-benefit analysis that I’m sure the Consumerist (and its lawyers) undertook. Ben lives to fight another day, and I have no doubt that Walmart will get what’s coming to it (at least I hope so).

  28. Yoni K says:

    Censoring the Censorship notice?
    When does the madness end?

  29. mattbrown says:

    myeh… I agree. Good choice.

    For the rest of you, go vote that the RIAA is much worse than Exxon. Then punch yourself in the face repeatedly.

  30. Edidid says:

    @kcs: Yup. Large companies can also wait out smaller groups draining their funds in legal fees and hours billed.

    By making this whole situation public is still fighting Wal-Mart and those who can’t understand should start realizing this. The cowardly thing to do would be to give in and pretend like the original story never existed.

  31. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Not to worry…I’m sure the presentation will live on..stored on many hard drives and circulating the Internet forevermore. I think it would make a hell of a YouTube video.

  32. Teo says:

    This isn’t an act of mere capitulation. The Consumerist won’t do anyone much good if it’s crushed into nothing by a company infinitely bigger and more powerful.

    They’ve brought it to light and that might be all they can do this time.

  33. swvaboy says:

    I have it saved in a PDF form if anyone is interested. I plan on posting to another website.

    Email me if you would like a copy.

    swvaboy at Gmail dot com

  34. MarkMadsen'sDanceInstructor says:

    Taking down a document is NOT evidence that it was illegal. In fact remedial action such as taking down the document is likely inadmissible as evidence of possible illegality. However, since I’m not a litigator, I couldn’t tell you for sure.

  35. Censoring the Censorship notice?
    When does the madness end?

    Pretty much where it usually does.