Slashdot Mirror

I just don't get it. I recently wanted to post to the GameFAQs message boards, so I went to register for a new account. Unfortunately, they required my name, address, date of birth, and gender before I could register, and providing false information for these was against their terms of service. It's insane, just to post to a message board. I'm guessing it's due to CNet owning them now. Oh well, just have to find somewhere else.

There are dishwasher makers that make Bosch knockoffs.

Are you implying there are no Madonna knockoffs? There are tons of Elvis Prestly knockoffs.

Hmm Google is your friend...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=madonna+imper sonator&btnG=Google+Search
http://pressreleases.cnetnetworks.com/phoenix.zhtm l?c=67325&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=932307&highlight=
"For example, if a Madonna fan visits Madonna's page, they will learn that independent artist Amy Kasio sounds similar to Madonna ultimately introducing them to a new musician they may otherwise have never been turned on to."

The big diffrence is one gets name recognition and airtime publicity and the other doesn't. At a record store you would know who Madonna is. Would you even look at the records from Amy Kasio?

Dear sir,

News Corporation owns MySpace.

CNET Networks owns News.com.

Have fun with your lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Me

News.com.au is the Australian site for News.com

Er no it's not

news.com.com is http://www.cnetnetworks.com/
news.com.au is http://www.newscorp.com/

No, news.com is part of CNET. http://www.cnetnetworks.com/. They're their own little company. NASDAQ: CNET

The Terms and Conditions states that you grant CNET Networks a licence to use your information any way they see fit, but the licence is nonexclusive. Therefore, the users who contributed the information at TVTome (or TV.com) could add that information to the TVIV Wiki too. However, proving who was the copyright holder of a paragraph, which was originally written by one person, then modified by, say three others, would probably make this too complicated to work on a large scale.

CNet and MSN are partners.
http://www.cnetnetworks.com/partnerships/
msn has a rival search engine.
msn would benefit if google's reputation suffered.
therefore cnet might benefit if google's reputation suffered.
An ethical reporter might mention this as a potential conflict of interest.

from the article
>>And it's not as though Google is the only company asking Web surfers to make that leap.

>> Trust is the key

>>The original article incorrectly implied that Google Desktop Search can track what's stored on a user's PC. The service does not expose a user's content to Google or anyone else without the user's explicit permission

If Microsoft had written this article wouldn't we have declared it FUD?