Boxing Days Deals & Discussion - Rules - No Cross Posting Please

[Ryan]

Hello all,

Well the most anticipaited shopping day of the year is nearly upon us, so we've created this special forum where you can post and discuss deals.

The one difference from the Hot Deals forum is you are allowed to discuss boxing day topics that aren't necessarily deals. IE if you plan to line up, what you've bought in past years, expected crowds, etc. Just try to keep the forum clean by searching to see if someone has started a similar topic first.

We must also ask that you don't cross post with other forums (ie our competitors). Please don't just link to a topic on another forum, post the actual information.

Thanks and happy shopping!

UPDATE: At the request of specific retailers, unauthorized flyer information has been removed.

[Curiosity]

Thanks Ryan for listening... :cheesygri

[squall458]

awesome man! redflags keeps gettin better

[jaigandhi5]

greatest day of the year is almost here :lol:

[impostor]

Woo hoo! I look forward to these sales more than Christmas itself :D

[Derek]

Hello all,

Well the most anticipaited shopping day of the year is nearly upon us, so we've created this special forum where you can post and discuss deals.

The one difference from the Hot Deals forum is you are allowed to discuss boxing day topics that aren't necessarily deals. IE if you plan to line up, what you've bought in past years, expected crowds, etc. Just try to keep the forum clean by searching to see if someone has started a similar topic first.

We must also ask that you don't cross post with other forums (ie our competitors). Please don't just link to a topic on another forum, post the actual information.

Thanks and happy shopping!

UPDATE: At the request of specific retailers, unauthorized flyer information has been removed.

[technut]

Boohoo... I missed seeing the BestBuy and Future Shop boxing day flyers.

Wasn't there some big court case (in the US, I think) not long ago about unauthorized release of flyers? Who won that one?

[Xanthuos]

I don't believe it ever made it to court. If it had, the retailers likely would not have won, as the Supreme Court has ruled previously that "facts" are not copyrightable. This all has to do with the DCMA, which you can look up if you're unfamiliar with it. While the actual scan of a flyer is copyrighted, the pricing data contained therein isn't. If X retailer is going to sell Y DVD for $9.99 on Black Friday or Boxing Day, then that is a fact and is not copyrightable.

A deals site in the US (FW) was the one to lead the fight against these large retailers. While the site did remove the pricing information, it also demanded justification for the retailers actions. Wal-Mart had actually gone the length of getting a subpoena to have the poster's identify disclosed. FW refused and threatened legal action, including action under Section 512(f) of the DMCA which says a party can be liable for damages for its knowingly false assertion of copyright. Needless to say, Wal-Mart backed down. To the best of my knowledge, last year and this year's Black Fridays went by without any retailers challenging posted sale information.

(EDIT: By the way, I'm from the US...so when I mention the DCMA and Supreme Court, I'm talking of US institutions, not the Canadian ones)

While I completely understand RFD's position of avoiding liability, I would pose this question:
I can understand the flyers being removed, as I said previously (at least in the US), they are copyrights
However, would RFD object to randomized lists of pricing data? It would not be a violation of copyright law to allow such.

[TheBrain]

UPDATE: At the request of specific retailers, unauthorized flyer information has been removed.


Ouch, RFD has become a victim of it's own success. It seems to me that in years past we didn't have that problem here.

[Derek]

Ouch, RFD has become a victim of it's own success. It seems to me that in years past we didn't have that problem here.

We did have the problem in the past with the release of unauthorized information. We just removed it. When the flyers actually hit the newstands we will have it for you.

[Avenger]

Boohoo... I missed seeing the BestBuy and Future Shop boxing day flyers.

Wasn't there some big court case (in the US, I think) not long ago about unauthorized release of flyers? Who won that one?
You didn't miss much.

[HowEver]

I'm respectful of this site's preference not to post the Boxing Day information now, but we are all cognizant that flyer info appears on this site on a seemingy weekly basis during the year *prior* to its delivery in people's mailboxes.

[eBuddy]

Great post, Xanthuos. If RFD & ************.ca have been threatened by the advertising bullies not to post the acceptable textual information, I'm sure members including myself will be willing to host the text. Does anybody have a copy of the information in their drive or cache?

While the actual scan of a flyer is copyrighted, the pricing data contained therein isn't. If X retailer is going to sell Y DVD for $9.99 on Black Friday or Boxing Day, then that is a fact and is not copyrightable.

To the best of my knowledge, last year and this year's Black Fridays went by without any retailers challenging posted sale information.

However, would RFD object to randomized lists of pricing data? It would not be a violation of copyright law to allow such.

[Derek]

I have spoken to Xanthous, and he has indicated he will not post or refer to it on RFD. If you post it or link to you after we expressly warn you otherwise, we will be forced to ban you.

On a related note, we have traditionally complied with retailers who do not want their information online at RFD whether they're advertisers or not. We have always believed we worked WITH retailers to bring everyone the best deals, not against them.

Great post, Xanthuos. If RFD & ************.ca have been threatened by the advertising bullies not to post the acceptable textual information, I'm sure members including myself will be willing to host the text. Does anybody have a copy of the information in their drive or cache?

[technut]

:lol:

But seriously, this site still serves a very useful purpose, despite this minor setback. Thanks for maintaining it Derek, Ryan & the rest of the mods.

[Xanthuos]

Indeed, while I disagree with the position RFD has taken on this, I must respect first that it is a business.
Because of this, I have agreed not to post the flyers or distribute that information on this forum. Sorry about that, folks.

I'd rather have this forum around for a long time bringing us deals year round then see this once-a-year incident cause it damage.

Banned as he linked to a website with the scans on RFD after being warned not to. - Derek

[takumi86]

I would like to say thanks all for setting this forum up and deals posted. I'll be living in this forum this week ! haha

[hd2002]

UPDATE: At the request of specific retailers, unauthorized flyer information has been removed.

boooo...why can't we stand up to these big names like fatwallet did? :mad:

[dakewldude]

And RFD takes the hush money...

I too feel the need to register my disagreement with this issue, however I understand that it may be for the greater good of RedFlagDeals.

[Samson45]

I can't believe Xanthuos was banned for linking to a site that contained the Boxing day flyers. Ok -- I may not like the fact RFD doesn't want the flyers on their site but it is understandable somewhat, but to ban Xanthuos for LINKING to them? That means the information is NOT on RFD. That just plain reeks of being in the retailers back pocket. I have to wonder, RFD wants to work with the retailers in bringing us deals, but what more information are they keeping from us? Hiding information from us... not good. So are you here for the customer or for the retailers? Think about that for a second.

[Derek]

I can't believe Xanthuos was banned for linking to a site that contained the Boxing day flyers. Ok -- I may not like the fact RFD doesn't want the flyers on their site but it is understandable somewhat, but to ban Xanthuos for LINKING to them? That means the information is NOT on RFD. That just plain reeks of being in the retailers back pocket. I have to wonder, RFD wants to work with the retailers in bringing us deals, but what more information are they keeping from us? Hiding information from us... not good. So are you here for the customer or for the retailers? Think about that for a second.

He was explicitly warned against doing so. It's the same thing as allowing someone to post a link to the flyer but not having the flyer on our site. If we allowed that, all our members would start hosting the flyers themselves and that would defeat the entire purpose of removing them - to NOT allow access to the information that was ILLEGALLY released.

To answer your question, we're for both the consumer and retailer. It is not a combatitive relationship.

[Samson45]

He was explicitly warned against doing so. It's the same thing as allowing someone to post a link to the flyer but not having the flyer on our site. If we allowed that, all our members would start hosting the flyers themselves and that would defeat the entire purpose of removing them - to NOT allow access to the information that was ILLEGALLY released.

To answer your question, we're for both the consumer and retailer. It is not a combatitive relationship.


I can see it as being undesirable to the retailer perhaps, but illegal? Prove to us how it is illegal to view these flyers early.

It may not be a combatitive relationship as you mention, but when the heats gets turned up, we know what side you fall on... illegal is only a convienent, but not real, excuse.

[cil254]

Derek, Ryan and mods, my thoughts are with you for this holiday season.
Sounds like you are going to have a lot of work to keep this forum clean and tidy...
Good luck.

[Derek]

They were illegally released. Beyond that I'm not sure what I can say and thus have no desire to go further than that. If you don't want to believe it, that's your choice. We've made our decision with the future of the community in mind and stand by it.

[crimsona]

It's like any other Non-Disclosure Agreement. Whoever released leaked it broke the NDA and thus the legally binding contract. While it is not illegal per se for you to view it, it is illegal for it to be released.

Many computer companies will do the exact same thing to us if we broke the NDA - like nVidia and Intel.

[Samson45]

It's like any other Non-Disclosure Agreement. Whoever released leaked it broke the NDA and thus the legally binding contract. While it is not illegal per se for you to view it, it is illegal for it to be released.

Many computer companies will do the exact same thing to us if we broke the NDA - like nVidia and Intel.

You think the person who got ahold of this flyer had an NDA with one of the two companies involved? Please... the number of people who could have possibly came upon these printed flyers in the last couple of days... there is just no way you could pin it back to just an employee or even a staffer of the print shop. (Only those people would come close to the so called NDA for this flyer).

[Justin]

You think the person who got ahold of this flyer had an NDA with one of the two companies involved? Please... the number of people who could have possibly came upon these printed flyers in the last couple of days... there is just no way you could pin it back to just an employee or even a staffer of the print shop. (Only those people would come close to the so called NDA for this flyer).

Did your name used to be Xanthuos?

[Aleem]

Wow: Read this

http://www.xanthuos.com/boxingday/bestbuy2004.pdf

Best Buy Tries To Censor Xanthuos for posting Best Buy Flyers.


This guy is simply advertising and showing enthusiasm for Best Buy, and they hit him with this legal B.S

[penispirate]

No, Samson45 is not Xanthuos.

[Justin]

Wow: Read this

http://xanthuos.741.com/boxingday/bestbuy2004.pdf

Best Buy Tries To Censor Xanthuos for posting Best Buy Flyers.


This guy is simply advertising and showing enthusiasm for Best Buy, and they hit him with this legal B.S


Ouch, that is harsh

[Ryan]

No, Samson45 is not Xanthuos.

No, but you are. Don't create another account please.

[crimsona]

You think the person who got ahold of this flyer had an NDA with one of the two companies involved? Please... the number of people who could have possibly came upon these printed flyers in the last couple of days... there is just no way you could pin it back to just an employee or even a staffer of the print shop. (Only those people would come close to the so called NDA for this flyer).

The print shop is very much under the agreement. Even though I did not explicitly sign any NDA myself, the company I'm with is the one that gets in trouble if I leak anything out.

In fact, II'll go out on a limb and state that I'm happy he was banned* and Best Buy is issuing him a Cease and Desist letter. When someone gets a warning the first time, but goes out and continues it the 2nd time to prove a point, he should be treated like the loose cannon that he is.

For those of you who claim there is no legal footing, I encourage you to actually seek legal counsel and prove the mods wrong.

EDIT: * twice

[Samson45]

The print shop is very much under the agreement. Even though I did not explicitly sign any NDA myself, the company I'm with is the one that gets in trouble if I leak anything out.

In fact, II'll go out on a limb and state that I'm happy he was banned* and Best Buy is issuing him a Cease and Desist letter. When someone gets a warning the first time, but goes out and continues it the 2nd time to prove a point, he should be treated like the loose cannon that he is.

For those of you who claim there is no legal footing, I encourage you to actually seek legal counsel and prove the mods wrong.

EDIT: * twice

Crimsona, careful with the sig. I just went on efnet and someone on #redflagdeals tried to DCC me the Boxing Day flyers. That is as much linking to them as is Xanthuos linking to his personal website, which then links to another page which contains links to images from the flyer!

[NG]

Since it is the stance of RFD that the consumer and retailer are in a partnership may I ask what the official stance of RFD is on pricing errors being posted?

Not trying to be a weiner here btw - just wondering.

[Samson45]

Since it is the stance of RFD that the consumer and retailer are in a partnership may I ask what the official stance of RFD is on pricing errors being posted?

Not trying to be a weiner here btw - just wondering.

I don't recall seeing pricing errors in a while, not since they have become heavily sponsored. Certainly haven't seen pricing errors posted of those whom sponsor them directly.

I would also like to hear their policy on pricing errors. In the past they have been posted with glee.

[Derek]

Since it is the stance of RFD that the consumer and retailer are in a partnership may I ask what the official stance of RFD is on pricing errors being posted?

Not trying to be a weiner here btw - just wondering.

The same as it's always been. You can post what you want, but if we're asked to removed it by the retailer, we would.

[Ryan]

Crimsona, careful with the sig. I just went on efnet and someone on #redflagdeals tried to DCC me the Boxing Day flyers. That is as much linking to them as is Xanthuos linking to his personal website, which then links to another page which contains links to images from the flyer!

We don't run the RFD channel. It's not official in any way whatsoever. I've never even been there.

As for pricing errors, we've always posted them and I imagine we will continue to do so.

[actng]

this is ********s. he can post whatever the hell he wants on his own website. you can't ban him for that. he removed the links already when I looked this afternoon before you banned him.

[Ryan]

this is ********s. he can post whatever the hell he wants on his own website. you can't ban him for that. he removed the links already when I looked this afternoon before you banned him.

Sure, but he can't link it here. He was warned beforehand.

[Derek]

this is ********s. he can post whatever the hell he wants on his own website. you can't ban him for that. he removed the links already when I looked this afternoon before you banned him.

With the same argument, we can ban whoever we want.

He was clearly asked not to post a link to distribute the flyer, ie: posting links to it, and he did through is profile. That's why he was banned. I think I was pretty clear on that issue in the other thread.

[crimsona]

Crimsona, careful with the sig. I just went on efnet and someone on #redflagdeals tried to DCC me the Boxing Day flyers. That is as much linking to them as is Xanthuos linking to his personal website, which then links to another page which contains links to images from the flyer!

Fair enough. I was just promoting the channel since it's kinda dead with only 20 people in it.

So if I get a request to stop promoting the channel (which isn't official anyway), I'll just edit my profile for what, 4 days?

No big deal for me.

[Rehan]

I don't recall seeing pricing errors in a while, not since they have become heavily sponsored. Certainly haven't seen pricing errors posted of those whom sponsor them directly.
You must have missed the $5 coupon thread during BestBuy.ca's Family & Friends event and the free-after-rebate CD-RW at Futureshop.ca that was supposed to be $15 or $20 or something.

[NG]

With the same argument, we can ban whoever we want.

He was clearly asked not to post a link to distribute the flyer, ie: posting links to it, and he did through is profile. That's why he was banned. I think I was pretty clear on that issue in the other thread.

I would contend that with any arguement you can ban whoever you want. It's your board. My question was just that - a question. Me wondering.

It leaves me baffled why some members of RFD are choosing to hammer the owner/mods over this flyer flapper.

It's their site. If you want a Canadian site following the "customer always" mantra as fatwallet then these members should start one.

And I don't mean that in a snide manour. I'd join it and post there as well as RFD, GFL PN et al.

The decision has been made and it was the site's owners choice to make. IMHO this topic has been going on for too long.

[actng]

With the same argument, we can ban whoever we want.

He was clearly asked not to post a link to distribute the flyer, ie: posting links to it, and he did through is profile. That's why he was banned. I think I was pretty clear on that issue in the other thread.

Guys come on that is even more ridiculous. I would rather you ban someone "because you felt like it" (as you said this is your board you can ban whomever you want) but your reason for justifying it cause he did it through his profile is completely ridiculous.

It's not like he created a website just for breaking the rules and linked to it. It was his PERSONAL website. Your argument in this case is the same as those people suing Google for linking to warez sites, pr0n sites, etc. It makes no sense and just shows that you guys have no back bone when it comes to legal pressure.

Let him host whatever he wants on his own site. Best Buy / Futureshop lawyers will deal with him directly.

Your job is to enforce the rules, when he was warned, he removed the link. You can't punish someone again for the same crime by banning them.

Ridiculous!

[actng]

whatever. go ban whoever you want. xanthuos put himself at legal risk by finding us good deals (and in the process of doing so, providing content for your website). Whether it was right / wrong, his intentions were good.

Compared to the likes of cummer and other trolls who don't know what they're talking about on this board, offering inaccurate / incorrect advice and then trolling about how everyone who disagrees is an idiot... sigh... forget it.

[crimsona]

Guys come on that is even more ridiculous. I would rather you ban someone "because you felt like it" (as you said this is your board you can ban whomever you want) but your reason for justifying it cause he did it through his profile is completely ridiculous.

It's not like he created a website just for breaking the rules and linked to it. It was his PERSONAL website. Your argument in this case is the same as those people suing Google for linking to warez sites, pr0n sites, etc. It makes no sense and just shows that you guys have no back bone when it comes to legal pressure.

Let him host whatever he wants on his own site. Best Buy / Futureshop lawyers will deal with him directly.

Your job is to enforce the rules, when he was warned, he removed the link. You can't punish someone again for the same crime by banning them.

Ridiculous!


I've been here all afternoon (for the lack of better things to do), and I'm pretty sure he did not remove them with the warning, and the link is still on his webpage. AFAIK the link was removed (probably by the mods, or automatically when banned) after he was banned.

[Derek]

Guys come on that is even more ridiculous. I would rather you ban someone "because you felt like it" (as you said this is your board you can ban whomever you want) but your reason for justifying it cause he did it through his profile is completely ridiculous.

It's not like he created a website just for breaking the rules and linked to it. It was his PERSONAL website. Your argument in this case is the same as those people suing Google for linking to warez sites, pr0n sites, etc. It makes no sense and just shows that you guys have no back bone when it comes to legal pressure.

Let him host whatever he wants on his own site. Best Buy / Futureshop lawyers will deal with him directly.

Your job is to enforce the rules, when he was warned, he removed the link. You can't punish someone again for the same crime by banning them.

Ridiculous!

The fact is that he did create a special website just to break the rules. Did you check out his website. Do you notice how the flyers are boxing day part are on a different page?

As for your Warez/porn argument, that's why we don't allow that content on our forums either.

Finally, he never removed the links. We removed them as we saw them.

[NG]

irc channel ad will be back in 4 days

Why has your IRC channel been removed?

[JayPatel]

So much drama..... he didnt heed the warnings...why is that so hard to accept? No different than posting links to porn and warez. if you link it, we'll remove it. Let it go people...as biased as you might think I am on this...Derek's done nothing wrong with the ban. He is protecting what is rightfully his property.

[Ryan]

Why has your IRC channel been removed?

AFAIK he was only talking about the info in his sig.

You know, I don't really see all this as something to get worked up over. The FatWallet comparison doesn't really work for one. They bring in millions of dollars a year, so they can afford to piss people off. There are what? Maybe ten or fifteen major retailers in Canada, so for one thing, comparison shopping isn't that hard.

[NG]

AFAIK he was only talking about the info in his sig.

You know, I don't really see all this as something to get worked up over. The FatWallet comparison doesn't really work for one. They bring in millions of dollars a year, so they can afford to piss people off. There are what? Maybe ten or fifteen major retailers in Canada, so for one thing, comparison shopping isn't that hard.

Oh yeah man - I agree with you (As I hope my post above detailed). Perhaps removed was the wrong term for me to use since it leaves it open ended as to who removed it. I suppose "why did you replace your sig" is better.

As far as getting worked up - no worried - I'm not. I'm more interested than anything else - I guess I'm just very nosy lol :D

[eBuddy]

I realize that it's a fine line, but it's still a sad day that RFD & ************ have tiptoed into the retailer side unlike Fatwallet's "the customer is always right" philosophy. :cry: So are Goldfishlegs, Frugalshopper or any other Canadian deals site like Fatwallet, or do Canadian consumers need to start one?

If you want a Canadian site following the "customer always" mantra as fatwallet then these members should start one.
And I don't mean that in a snide manour. I'd join it and post there as well as RFD, GFL PN et al.

[Ryan]

I realize that it's a fine line, but it's still a sad day that RFD & ************ have tiptoed into the retailer side unlike Fatwallet's "the customer is always right" philosophy. :cry: So are Goldfishlegs, Frugalshopper or any other Canadian deals site like Fatwallet, or do Canadian consumers need to start one?

I think their mantra is probably closer to "we are never wrong"... Size is leverage. I'm not exagerating when I say FW brings in millions in revenue. They are about 100x larger than all Canadian deal sites combined. I don't know of any Canadian precident and you know how much it would cost to fight every lawsuit threat we get? We don't have the resources to fight a lawsuit. It's easy to talk about standing up to a company 1000x larger than you when it's not your job on the line.

The Canadian market is fundamentally different than the American one. It is basically run by a dozen large companies. The law is different here and just because FW was able to battle and win, doesn't mean the same would happen here.

We do our best to be the best for our customers, but we have to do that while still ensuring that this site has a future. By working with retailers we are able to arrange contests where we give away $1000s in prizes, to arrange exclusive deals, and to ensure the viability of this site and improve it. This is not a site about ripping companies off.

What have you really lost by having to wait a couple days for the flyers? To get the deals you'll still have to be up at 3am waiting for the webpage to update or you'll have to be waiting in line at 3am freezing your butt off.

Anyway, to summarize, this isn't about taking sides, it's about the reality of the situation. Chill. Nothing has changed.

[hd2002]

lol, the dude is an American :cheesygri it is my understanding that theses flyers are only copyrighted in Canada. of course Canada has no jurisdiction in the states, therefore he can probably post them all he wants as long as it is not on a Canadian site (since redflagdeals is using .com domain, and is registered and perhaps also hosted by TUCOWS INC. (international company with office in both US and CA), it is unclear whether or not rdf should be considered as part of Canadian jurisdiction) can anyone here who knows the law clarifie this part for me?

BTW, I luv that last part of the letter: “We are not representing you and we are not protecting your interests. We recommend that you seek legal advice immediately.� Yeah, right, asking the kid to pay $100+/hour on jerks just like you guys? “no thanks…� It’s probably a good idea to bring this to ACLU’s attention though.

[NG]

BTW, I luv that last part of the letter: “We are not representing you and we are not protecting your interests. We recommend that you seek legal advice immediately.� Yeah, right, asking the kid to pay $100+/hour on jerks just like you guys? “no thanks…� It’s probably a good idea to bring this to ACLU’s attention though.

It wouldn't be the ACLU however the www.bccla.org or www.ccla.org might be interested *however* Ryan is right. The Canadian market is a very monopolistic one. Wanna go to an electronics store - well we have Best Buy or Best Buy with a different name. Although Circuit City is here via <a href=../autolink/redirectpage.php?linkid=128 target=_blank>Radio Shack</a> they seem to have no interest in bringing their big box stores to Canada. Not even in a web model with us using <a href=../autolink/redirectpage.php?linkid=128 target=_blank>Radio Shack</a> as a depot to pick up items. All the deals sites in Canada is affected by this. I'm sure these sites take a fair bit to run and revenue would be needed to replace the lost ads since if it was legal to post pre-boxing day prices I'm pretty certain BB/FS wouldn't be very keen on paying to advertise here - after all - I've never seen a staples ad after all the 150% PM stuff.

The only solution to fixing this is if US sites like Computer Geeks expanded their service to Canada like <a href=../autolink/redirectpage.php?linkid=147 target=_blank>Tiger Direct</a> did or VXweb (sp) became a much bigger opeeration. Posting more deals from <a href=../autolink/redirectpage.php?linkid=140 target=_blank>TSC</a> etc on the front page is another option but then members would be complaining about RFD posting so-so deals just because they're one of the few Canadian stores with an affilate program that sells electronics.

As for ebuddy's question. Though I disagree with your fine line arguement I see your point. I can't speak for GFL (and def. not frugal shopper since I've only been there once or twice) but it's worth a shot if you wanted to ask the owner over there. If I was him I wouldn't touch linkage to these these pre-boxing day prices tho. Like I said I agree with Urban, Derek and Ryan - these stores may just be too big for a Canadian site like this to fight.

Starting a petition for Fat Wallet to start a Canadian forum might be another option too. Post the deals that may be to risque for the Canadian sites there and the remainder of the hot deals could be posted on Canadian sites.

[YLSF]

I didn't see this thread before my post in Off-topic.. I guess the search wasn't working 100%.. Anyway, if he did indeed actually POST a message here with the link to the site than I agree with the banning since it was requested he didn't. If it was just a link to his homepage with no indication that people could find the flyer information there, than I think the banning wasn't the best option. I mean, RFD has given other users a "chance" by giving a temporary ban before. Now, it seems like this guy is banned for good (and his IP). If it was a temp ban for a few weeks as punishment, I think that would have been a better solution...

[d_jedi]

How's this?

Edit: Not cool.

[AnitaPeterson]

Deleted


whoa! :twisted:

[felixdd]

Just want to throw in my two cents.
Xanthuos mentioned that the flyers are themselves copyright. One thing about the nature of copyrights is that if you don't vigorously enforce it, you eventually lose the right to do so when a straight-forward copy-cat item arrives. I.e. Apple ordered a cease and desist to a person who made a Ipod-look-alike program to play MP3s and AACs on PDAs. It sounds ridiculous, but if they didn't do so, down the road a company can just cite this product and say, "look...if they didn't care then, what gives them the right to care now?"

[insaneo]

i'm sorry but i am totally on the MODS side on this one

while it was nice to see the deals, it was breaking copyright law as the lawyers have already stated and such not

he was banned simply bc i am pretty sure that the owner of RFD was protecting his own interests!!!!
If action wasnt taken to curb behvaiour like this, then maybe Best Buy would have sued him instead bc he was the one who provided the means for all of this mess

geez, cmon ppl!!!! Are some ppl that cheap that u have to protect ppl who break the law just so u can get a deal??????

let it go

he is banned!!!

i am surprised some other "regulars" have not been banned themselves for the comments they have directed at the mods

they are doing their jobs

PROPS TO THE MODS FOR DOING WHATS RIGHT!!

[dakewldude]

So are Goldfishlegs, Frugalshopper or any other Canadian deals site like Fatwallet, or do Canadian consumers need to start one?

I too find myself wondering this.

Additionally, after pillaging Best Buy/FutureShop for all their worth this Boxing Day, they will have lost me as a customer. I think this level of corporate strong-arming is completely uncalled for in this instance - having the flyers available a few days early will hurt FS/BB no more than releasing them the day before. It is a poor excuse at best.

[d_jedi]

How's this?

Edit: Not cool.

OK.. I'll keep my mouth shut, then.

[sun]

ok, i know this has been discussed to death, but i just have a few quick questions about the guy banned for the boxing day flyers. he was banned because he provided scans ahead of the release date, right? would he have been banned just for stating the deals instead of the scans? if so, why has it never been an issue about the staples info leaking ahead of time? is it just because staples doesn't sponsor rfd, because we all hate staples, or some other reason?

[dealexpert]

i have a question regarding the position of RFD with the retailer.
i started a thread in off-topics, please take a look an answer if you have the time.
Thanks
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?p=1197629#post1197629

[bobaroo]

ok, i know this has been discussed to death, but i just have a few quick questions about the guy banned for the boxing day flyers. he was banned because he provided scans ahead of the release date, right? would he have been banned just for stating the deals instead of the scans? if so, why has it never been an issue about the staples info leaking ahead of time? is it just because staples doesn't sponsor rfd, because we all hate staples, or some other reason?


i think the mods answered this about 5 times already. the reason the boxing day deals were removed is because the retailers contacted RFD to explicitly have the boxing day deals removed.