Slashdot Mirror

it's a good idea but i could care less about this option. I mean the last thing i would want is to have my PVR thinking i'm gay!!!

I heard her whining on Morning edition yesterday about how put out she has been since they ran an article about her in the WallStreet Journal...

'Spam Queen' Defends Direct Marketing Via E-Mail
(Morning Edition Audio) Dec. 3, 2002
Direct marketer Laura Betterly speaks to NPR's John Ydstie.

Laura Betterly
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin , FL
(727) 733-5335
Data Resource Consulting Inc.
Remember she has a 5,000-square-foot home, with a pool and a Lexus just begging to be filled with your cards and letters. original slashdot posting
Wall Street Journal Story

other mentions:

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/shownotes/story /0,24330,3407845,00.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/mon/business/ archive.htm
http://www.angrywhitegirl.com/weblog/weblog.php

Slashdot headline: Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling

The NYT, WSJ, and McNews seem to agree with Slashdot's perspective, FWIW.

If TiVo Thinks You Are Gay, Here's How to Set It Straight

What You Buy Affects Recommendations On Amazon.com, Too; Why the Cartoons?

By JEFFREY ZASLOW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Basil Iwanyk is not a neo-Nazi. Lukas Karlsson isn't a shadowy stalker. David S. Cohen is not Korean.

But all of them live with a machine that seems intent on giving them such labels. It's their TiVo, the digital videorecorder that records some programs it just assumes its owner will like, based on shows the viewer has chosen to record. A phone call the machine makes to TiVo, Inc., in San Jose, Calif., once a day provides key information. As these men learned, when TiVo thinks it has you pegged, there's just one way to change its "mind": outfox it.

Mr. Iwanyk, 32 years old, first suspected that his TiVo thought he was gay, since it inexplicably kept recording programs with gay themes. A film studio executive in Los Angeles and the self-described "straightest guy on earth," he tried to tame TiVo's gay fixation by recording war movies and other "guy stuff."

"The problem was, I overcompensated," he says. "It started giving me documentaries on Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Eichmann. It stopped thinking I was gay and decided I was a crazy guy reminiscing about the Third Reich."

He mentioned his TiVo tussle to a friend, who told an executive at CBS's "The King of Queens," who then wrote an episode with a My-TiVo-thinks-I'm-gay subplot.

A lot of gadgets and Web sites now feature "personalization technologies" that profile consumers by tracking what they watch, listen to or buy. The software, embedded in sites such as Amazon.com and CDNOW.com, then recommends other books, videos and music based on a customer's tastes.

The Willies

Many consumers appreciate having computers delve into their hearts and heads. But some say it gives them the willies, because the machines either know them too well or make cocksure assumptions about them that are way off base. That's why even TiVo lovers are tempted to hoodwink it -- a phenomenon that was also spoofed this year on another TV show, HBO's "The Mind of the Married Man."

Mike Binder, creator and star of that show, had set his home TiVo to record his 1999 movie, "The Sex Monster," about a man whose wife becomes bisexual. After that, Mr. Binder's TiVo assumed he would enjoy a steady stream of gay programming. Unnerved, he counteracted the onslaught by recording the Playboy Channel and MTV's spring break bikini coverage. It worked, he says. "My TiVo doesn't look at me funny anymore."

His wife, however, was taken aback when she saw all the half-naked women he was ordering through TiVo. He told her those women meant nothing to him: "I'm just counterprogramming because TiVo thinks I'm gay." She was unamused. The incident inspired an episode of his show.

Though some users contend TiVo has sex on the brain, TiVo's general manager, Brodie Keast, explains that the box is merely "reacting to feedback you give it." Still, the machine employs algorithms -- searching several thousand key details (favorite actors, movie and TV genres) -- that leave some people wondering whether it is judging their predilections.

Mr. Karlsson, 26, says he "pre-emptively" found all the religious shows in his TV listings and used the "thumbs down" button on his remote control to tell TiVo he has no interest in them. (Giving three thumbs down is the best way to block a program.) After that, his TiVo recorded movies about creepy homicides. "They all have titles like 'Murder on Skeleton Isle,' " says the computer system administrator in Cambridge, Mass.

He uses the "thumbs" button to tell TiVo he hates such films. He also orders cooking shows, which softens TiVo's view of him. "I don't want it thinking I'm an ax murderer," he says.

Mr. Cohen, 30, has a TiVo that mysteriously assumed he wanted Korean news programs. The Philadelphia lawyer gave thumbs down to anything Korean, and his TiVo got the message. Sort of. "The next day, it recorded the Chinese news," he says.

TiVo's 500,000 subscribers use the box primarily to record programs they specifically request, and many laud its ability to pause live broadcasts and record a show's entire season. Still, in TiVo-focused online chat-rooms and in secretive admissions to one another, some say they resent being pigeonholed by TiVo's suggestions.

'A Pregnant Gay Man'

Like TiVo, other techno-profilers run hard with limited information. Ray Everett-Church of Fremont, Calif., who is gay, ordered "Queer as Folk" videos from Amazon.com. Understandably, the site began suggesting gay-related calendars and books. Then he bought a baby book for a pregnant friend. So for weeks, the site also recommended parenting books. He says it was as if Amazon.com decided he was "a pregnant gay man."

He fought back, he says, "by inundating it with additional data. I searched for other stuff -- on politics, computers -- so it would stop throwing baby books at me. Now it thinks I've abandoned the baby and I'm preparing for a career in politics."

Mr. Everett-Church, a privacy consultant for businesses, predicts that as techno-profiling increases, more people will purposely muck up their profiles. They'll fear ordering books on mental illnesses or sexual preferences because they'll wonder if they'll somehow be publicly identified.

All techno-profiling companies contacted for this article said that information gleaned is for the customer's personal use only. Still, even Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos knows the potential mortification factor.

For a live demonstration before an audience of 500 people, Mr. Bezos once logged onto Amazon.com (amazon.com) to show how it caters to his interests. The top recommendation it gave him? The DVD for "Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity." That popped up because he had previously ordered "Barbarella," starring Jane Fonda, a spokesman explains.

Dawn Freeman, 23, a tax analyst in Lexington, Ky., has bought lowbrow videos, such as "American Pie," from Amazon.com. But she was aghast when the site suggested Tom Green's gross-out performance in "Road Trip."

"I thought, 'I know I don't like high cinema, but have I really reached the point where I'd like to watch Tom Green lick a mouse?" To even out her Amazon profile, she went through the site finding "witty independent films."

Her TiVo also thinks she's a sophomoric-humor-loving 12-year-old, she says. It keeps giving her cartoons. "I know it's dumb to take it personally, but it's in your face. These are supposedly objective computers saying, 'This is what we think of you.' "

Dissing Ice Cube

A.J. Meyer, a 35-year-old Web site developer in Minneapolis, ordered the DVD for "Scarface," the Al Pacino gangster movie, from Netflix.com (netflix.com). After that, the site kept recommending movies about gangster rappers. He stopped the assault by giving negative ratings to all movies starring Ice Cube. (Netflix allows members to rate any of its 12,000-plus titles with one to five stars -- whether they have rented a film or not. That helps the site calculate future recommendations.)

After Mr. Meyer ordered a documentary about New York from Amazon.com, it pitched him countless documentaries -- even one on the history of the thimble. He stopped the Ken Burnsification of his profile by searching the site for plasma TVs. "That way, I identified myself as a high-tech guy," he says. "The thimble is more low tech."

Virginia Heffernan, TV columnist for Slate.com, doesn't understand why some people are resistant to techno-profiling, or find it creepy. She didn't look for any deep meaning when her TiVo kept giving her TV shows in Polish. And after buying self-help books on Amazon.com, she accepted that every time she logged on, the site pitched products to make her a more self-fulfilled human being.

"I like the idea that someone cares," she says. "Even a machine."

TiVo users can program the machine to skip certain channels entirely. But many users don't bother to figure out how to do it, or are too intrigued by TiVo's recommendation process, says a spokesman. TiVo is paid to promote programs and products it calls "advertainment" on a special screen. But the company says none of these are given to users as suggestions.

Some people have given up trying to manipulate personalization technologies. Dino Leon, a hair-salon owner in Birmingham, Mich., says his TiVo quickly figured out that he and his partner were gay. They were OK with that, but just for fun, they tried to confuse the software by punching in "redneck" programs, like Jerry Springer's talk show.

TiVo wasn't fooled, and kept recording gay shows. Mr. Leon believes the box was giving them a message: "You're definitely gay. And you're watching too much TV."

Write to Jeffrey Zaslow at jeffrey.zaslow@wsj.com

Updated November 26, 2002

Basil Iwanyk is not a neo-Nazi. Lukas Karlsson isn't a shadowy stalker. David S. Cohen is not Korean.

But all of them live with a machine that seems intent on giving them such labels. It's their TiVo, the digital videorecorder that records some programs it just assumes its owner will like, based on shows the viewer has chosen to record. A phone call the machine makes to TiVo, Inc., in San Jose, Calif., once a day provides key information. As these men learned, when TiVo thinks it has you pegged, there's just one way to change its "mind": outfox it.

Mr. Iwanyk, 32 years old, first suspected that his TiVo thought he was gay, since it inexplicably kept recording programs with gay themes. A film studio executive in Los Angeles and the self-described "straightest guy on earth," he tried to tame TiVo's gay fixation by recording war movies and other "guy stuff."

"The problem was, I overcompensated," he says. "It started giving me documentaries on Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Eichmann. It stopped thinking I was gay and decided I was a crazy guy reminiscing about the Third Reich."

He mentioned his TiVo tussle to a friend, who told an executive at CBS's "The King of Queens," who then wrote an episode with a My-TiVo-thinks-I'm-gay subplot.

A lot of gadgets and Web sites now feature "personalization technologies" that profile consumers by tracking what they watch, listen to or buy. The software, embedded in sites such as Amazon.com and CDNOW.com, then recommends other books, videos and music based on a customer's tastes.

The Willies

Many consumers appreciate having computers delve into their hearts and heads. But some say it gives them the willies, because the machines either know them too well or make cocksure assumptions about them that are way off base. That's why even TiVo lovers are tempted to hoodwink it -- a phenomenon that was also spoofed this year on another TV show, HBO's "The Mind of the Married Man."

[Image of TiVo Remote]

Remote Control: Viewers help TiVo understand their tastes by giving TV shows thumbs up or down.

Mike Binder, creator and star of that show, had set his home TiVo to record his 1999 movie, "The Sex Monster," about a man whose wife becomes bisexual. After that, Mr. Binder's TiVo assumed he would enjoy a steady stream of gay programming. Unnerved, he counteracted the onslaught by recording the Playboy Channel and MTV's spring break bikini coverage. It worked, he says. "My TiVo doesn't look at me funny anymore."

His wife, however, was taken aback when she saw all the half-naked women he was ordering through TiVo. He told her those women meant nothing to him: "I'm just counterprogramming because TiVo thinks I'm gay." She was unamused. The incident inspired an episode of his show.

Though some users contend TiVo has sex on the brain, TiVo's general manager, Brodie Keast, explains that the box is merely "reacting to feedback you give it." Still, the machine employs algorithms -- searching several thousand key details (favorite actors, movie and TV genres) -- that leave some people wondering whether it is judging their predilections.

Mr. Karlsson, 26, says he "pre-emptively" found all the religious shows in his TV listings and used the "thumbs down" button on his remote control to tell TiVo he has no interest in them. (Giving three thumbs down is the best way to block a program.) After that, his TiVo recorded movies about creepy homicides. "They all have titles like 'Murder on Skeleton Isle,' " says the computer system administrator in Cambridge, Mass.

He uses the "thumbs" button to tell TiVo he hates such films. He also orders cooking shows, which softens TiVo's view of him. "I don't want it thinking I'm an ax murderer," he says.

Mr. Cohen, 30, has a TiVo that mysteriously assumed he wanted Korean news programs. The Philadelphia lawyer gave thumbs down to anything Korean, and his TiVo got the message. Sort of. "The next day, it recorded the Chinese news," he says.

TiVo's 500,000 subscribers use the box primarily to record programs they specifically request, and many laud its ability to pause live broadcasts and record a show's entire season. Still, in TiVo-focused online chat-rooms and in secretive admissions to one another, some say they resent being pigeonholed by TiVo's suggestions.

'A Pregnant Gay Man'

Like TiVo, other techno-profilers run hard with limited information. Ray Everett-Church of Fremont, Calif., who is gay, ordered "Queer as Folk" videos from Amazon.com. Understandably, the site began suggesting gay-related calendars and books. Then he bought a baby book for a pregnant friend. So for weeks, the site also recommended parenting books. He says it was as if Amazon.com decided he was "a pregnant gay man."

He fought back, he says, "by inundating it with additional data. I searched for other stuff -- on politics, computers -- so it would stop throwing baby books at me. Now it thinks I've abandoned the baby and I'm preparing for a career in politics."

Mr. Everett-Church, a privacy consultant for businesses, predicts that as techno-profiling increases, more people will purposely muck up their profiles. They'll fear ordering books on mental illnesses or sexual preferences because they'll wonder if they'll somehow be publicly identified.

All techno-profiling companies contacted for this article said that information gleaned is for the customer's personal use only. Still, even Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos knows the potential mortification factor.

For a live demonstration before an audience of 500 people, Mr. Bezos once logged onto Amazon.com (amazon.com) to show how it caters to his interests. The top recommendation it gave him? The DVD for "Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity." That popped up because he had previously ordered "Barbarella," starring Jane Fonda, a spokesman explains.

Dawn Freeman, 23, a tax analyst in Lexington, Ky., has bought lowbrow videos, such as "American Pie," from Amazon.com. But she was aghast when the site suggested Tom Green's gross-out performance in "Road Trip."

"I thought, 'I know I don't like high cinema, but have I really reached the point where I'd like to watch Tom Green lick a mouse?" To even out her Amazon profile, she went through the site finding "witty independent films."

Her TiVo also thinks she's a sophomoric-humor-loving 12-year-old, she says. It keeps giving her cartoons. "I know it's dumb to take it personally, but it's in your face. These are supposedly objective computers saying, 'This is what we think of you.' "

Dissing Ice Cube

A.J. Meyer, a 35-year-old Web site developer in Minneapolis, ordered the DVD for "Scarface," the Al Pacino gangster movie, from Netflix.com (netflix.com). After that, the site kept recommending movies about gangster rappers. He stopped the assault by giving negative ratings to all movies starring Ice Cube. (Netflix allows members to rate any of its 12,000-plus titles with one to five stars -- whether they have rented a film or not. That helps the site calculate future recommendations.)

After Mr. Meyer ordered a documentary about New York from Amazon.com, it pitched him countless documentaries -- even one on the history of the thimble. He stopped the Ken Burnsification of his profile by searching the site for plasma TVs. "That way, I identified myself as a high-tech guy," he says. "The thimble is more low tech."

Virginia Heffernan, TV columnist for Slate.com, doesn't understand why some people are resistant to techno-profiling, or find it creepy. She didn't look for any deep meaning when her TiVo kept giving her TV shows in Polish. And after buying self-help books on Amazon.com, she accepted that every time she logged on, the site pitched products to make her a more self-fulfilled human being.

"I like the idea that someone cares," she says. "Even a machine."

TiVo users can program the machine to skip certain channels entirely. But many users don't bother to figure out how to do it, or are too intrigued by TiVo's recommendation process, says a spokesman. TiVo is paid to promote programs and products it calls "advertainment" on a special screen. But the company says none of these are given to users as suggestions.

Some people have given up trying to manipulate personalization technologies. Dino Leon, a hair-salon owner in Birmingham, Mich., says his TiVo quickly figured out that he and his partner were gay. They were OK with that, but just for fun, they tried to confuse the software by punching in "redneck" programs, like Jerry Springer's talk show.

TiVo wasn't fooled, and kept recording gay shows. Mr. Leon believes the box was giving them a message: "You're definitely gay. And you're watching too much TV."

Written by Jeffrey Zaslow

The Actual Article

Here is the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB103826193 6872356908,00.html

To read the story without having to register for the (pay) site, use this link:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB103826193 6872356908,00.html

Remember, they aren't payed by how many people actually follow up on the spam they send, they get payed for the number of people they send their spam to

That's not always true. Read this article (previously posted on Slashdot).

From slashdot last week:
The Economics of Spam

or direct link to the article:
Spam Queen

the article itself is a very interesting read, and shows just how few replies/orders are needed to make a profit from spam. Scary stuff.

When enough spam comes from a country (not to name names [cough-Korea-cough]), the TLD becomes poison. People in the US get sick of dealing with the problem and simply block the whole damn country. Blocking .kr cut my spam in half. Eventually people in those countries whose legitimate email keeps bouncing will get on their own government's ass to deal with the problem in their own special way, like maybe a good caning.

Some of these people absolutely have no clue. Take for example, Laura Betterly, the so-called Spam Queen in this Wall Street Journal article (no reg). Quote: "I'm just trying to make a living like everyone else." Apparently Laura thinks we all make a living by being assholes. Now there's a caning candidate if there ever was one.

It's ironic, giving the information available today, you would think you would have done just a little research.

You need to stop just speculating like every other idiot, go beyond hypothesis, and start rigorously testing your assertions.

If you're not just trolling and actually give a shit about the issues you claim you are. I suggest you start reading what the upper echelons read.

The Economist
The Financial Times
The Wall Street Journal

This is what you will look like if you spam!!

That should scare some people straight... I hope! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN.

She's a Witch! She's a Witch! Burn Her! Burn Her!

Good gawd...

No wonder she chose an 'occupation' that doesn't require interaction with others. She looks like a smacked ass!

Blah. It's even a Photoshop filtered black & white picture, which is usually done to make someone look good. They had to do it to her just to upgrade her face to hideous.

I always figured spammers were ugly.

Knunov

basically hook up two wireless network cameras that would point to the street outside my house.

They would run motion detection software that would basically write to a database when it detected movement. By measuring the time between the two motion captures and knowing the difference in length between the cameras, I could calculate how fast people drive by my house.

By going to my homepage, you would see something like:
Last car went by at: 07:05:30 am
It was going 38.9mph. 3.9 over the speed limit!

Anyways, until the price of wireless network cams come down, I guess it's just a thought.

The WSJ had a fascinating piece [subscribers only] on SACD last year. Some excerpts:

The Future of Sound: SACD
By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
April 24, 2001

Mark Levinson, the archguru of ultra hi-fi musical reproduction, has stopped recording music on conventional CDs. He no longer even listens to them. And, while his name still is burnished on some of the world's most expensive CD players -- the Mark Levinson Reference CD Player, for example -- by a company which bought his brand, and name, years ago, he discourages clients at his own company, Red Rose Music, from buying conventional CD gear. Instead, he records all his music in the new Super Audio CD format (SACD) and recommends to his customers that, if they want digital music, they buy SACD players.

SACD, which was recently launched in America by Sony and Philips, the same partnership that, a quarter century earlier, developed and patented the CD, is identical to the CD in its dimensions and appearance but has a different and far superior way of encoding and decoding digital sound.

Mr. Levinson explains that this change is crucial to the future of digital sound. "SACD addresses what has become an international epidemic: PCM." PCM, which stands for Pulse Code Modulation, is the operating system used for all digital sound -- CDs, movies, television, DVDs, computers, etc. -- with the exception of SACDs. Mr. Levinson's concern about PCM goes beyond the quality of the music it reproduces. He believes that PCM induces toxic stress in listeners.

The Sony executives responsible for marketing this new format do not share Mr. Levinson's view about the toxicity of PCM. But they acknowledged that there were sonic problems with PCM, which had resulted in reports of "listening fatigue," as David Kawakami, who directs the Super Audio project for Sony, put it to me. All agreed that SACD was vastly superior. So why had PCM become the standard for digital sound?

Mr. Kawakami explained that PCM had come about as an engineering solution to "a bit-management problem." In the early 1980s, Sony stipulated two requisites for developing digital sound. First, the container itself, which was the CD disk, could not be more than 4.75 inches in diameter -- a dimension that would allow CD players to meet the European standard for an audio player on an automobile's dashboard. This meant, given the state-of-the-art technology then, that the CD could not hold more than 650 million bits of data. Second, it had to be capable of playing at least 70 minutes of music -- the length of a typical symphony -- which required more than 2.5 billion bits of digital data.

To meet these seemingly contradictory requirements, part of the signal had to be eliminated, but without degrading the sound so much that it became unacceptable to the public. Enter PCM. This ingenious electronic fiddle truncated the original bandwidth from 100,000 to 20,000 hertz, since humans cannot normally hear frequencies above 15,000 hertz, and "sampled," or took a digital snapshot, of the remaining information 44,000 times a second. This doctored data was repackaged into 16-bit packets capable of playing back a symphony in 74 minutes or less.

Of course, the acoustical engineers who invented PCM knew that the condensed 16-word product would be inferior to the original: For one thing, filters, on both the encoding and decoding ends, cause audible "errors." For another, chopping out all the information between 20,000 and 100,000 Hertz reduced the harmonic depth of the music itself...

Being an early adopter, I bought an SACD player as soon as it was available. But then I discovered my very expensive ($10,000) pre-amp redigitalized the SACDs into PCM. Aside from this sophisticated circuitry, there was the problem of the volume control. Like that of many other pre-amps, mine filtered out all bandwidth over 20,000 hertz. That is because, before the introduction of SACD, sonic information over 20,000 hertz would be heard as unintended noise. So I still was not getting the full benefit of SACD.

Surfing the Internet with key words like "audiophile" and "volume control," I then found in Boise, Idaho, something called a passive volume attenuator, made by Placette Audio and sold for $1,400. By using several dozen precision resistors, costing about 300 times as much as a conventional volume control, the Placette was capable of controlling the volume from the SACD without filtering out any of its bandwidth.

Once I had hooked up my Placette, I was finally able to listen to unadulterated PCM-free music. I listened on available SACDs, selling for about $25 -- everything from jazz and church choirs on the DMP sampler I bought to classical Bach on an acoustical guitar and a Rupert Brooke poem, read by "Sex and the City" actress Kim Cattrall (who is Mark Levinson's wife) on Red Rose Music's sampler.

Walt Mossberg had a good article about tablets in journal this morning. Personally, I think that in five years we will be laughing about "tablet hype" much in the same manner that we laugh about "thin-clients" and "push technology" today. I'm still waiting for the day when everyone uses word processors through the browser.

I was really interested in getting a Sony Picturebook. This was about 4-5 months ago, when the latest ones had not yet hit the United States. I asked a client of mine, who is Japanese, to get me pricing. He obliged, but only after warning me about the Transmeta processor. "It doesn't work well when you try to run multiple applications," he said. "Everyone says it's slow."

I asked him who had told him that. He said it was the Sony rep at the store where he bought his Vaio. Uh-oh.

I knew a Transmeta 867MHz processor wouldn't perform as well as an Intel 867MHz processor, but I did some digging and was shocked to figure out how much slower it really is. Check out these benchmarks from Tom's Hardware. The Transmeta 600MHz processor got stomped by a "vintage" PII/366MHz notebook. That's terrible.

To me, small size and battery life rank higher on my list than pure performance. Still, the Transmeta processors run so slowly that the only way I could justify buying one is if they had 5+ hours of battery life. But they don't -- the PictureBook is only advertising 2.5 hours of battery life. Compare this to the (admittedly larger) 3.7-pound IBM X30, where Walter Mossberg put one through the grinder and got 3 hours and 29 minutes of battery life. IBM is claiming 5+ hours in BatteryMark for the same laptop.

Transmeta did one thing, and that was to get Intel turned on to the fact that consumers want good battery life in notebooks. I think the quote from the article puts it best: "Intel's focus on battery life happened because Transmeta pressured them into it... forced them to do something different. The good news is you've got a giant to acknowledge you but the bad news is you've woken the giant."

Right now, the giant is still stomping Transmeta, and I doubt that tablet PCs will really put Transmeta back in the running. Whatever Transmeta can come up with, Intel has proven that they can match. Transmeta might make initial inroads, just like they did on subnotebooks, but eventually Intel will again wake up, and this time I don't think Transmeta will survive.

Well Mr. Microsoft appologist, You heard wrong.

Internal Microsoft memos were released containing email conversations among Microsoft executives in 1991 and 1992 that discuss deliberately crippling a beta copy of Windows 3.1 so it would produce an obscure error message if run atop DR-DOS. The code to check for the existence of DR-DOS was encrypted and obfuscated -- it was the only encrypted code in the beta

If you're unsure of their intentions in doing such a thing, here's a quote from email sent by Microsoft Senior VP Brad Silverberg in 1992:

"What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable and, when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS, or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office."

The obfuscated code searched for tiny cosmetic code differences between MS-DOS and DR-DOS, and when it found the latter it displayed an obscure but worrying error message: "Non-fatal error detected: Error #4D53. (Please contact Windows 3.1 Beta Support.)" The non-MS-detecting code was dropped into 5 places in the beta Win 3.1 code and, had no possible legitimate purpose in ensuring the proper functioning of Windows. The code was still present in three places in the shipping Win 3.1 product, but had a single byte flipped to disable it. Interestingly, any program running on the shipping version of Windows could change this one system bit at anytime to cause these errors to return.

For a detailed technical analysis look here

Another article can be found here (subscription required)

The Wall Street Journal has an AP story about the early posting of the decision.

WASHINGTON -- The landmark decision in the Microsoft antitrust trial was supposed to remain secret until after financial markets closed, but the federal court quietly posted the documents on its Web site (www.dcd.uscourts.gov) nearly 90 minutes before the closing bell.

That discovery by some Internet enthusiasts coincided with a flurry of late-day trading of Microsoft's stock. Its price, which had been falling most of Friday, ticked up just moments after the court placed on its Web site the decision that handed Microsoft a huge victory.

Late-day trading peaked five minutes before markets closed, when $90 million worth of Microsoft shares exchanged hands. Microsoft traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market at $52.22 in the moments before the court posted its ruling Friday; the price climbed as high as $53.12 at 3:40 p.m., still 20 minutes before anyone was supposed to know the outcome of the antitrust case, then settled to close at $53. Its stock rose $3.32, or 6.3%, to $56.32 in after-hours trading.

The incident meant tech-savvy Web surfers knew the judge's decision fully one hour before even lawyers for Microsoft and the Justice Department. A glitch in Internet technology, which was at the heart of the antitrust trial, contributed to the early disclosure.

"Somebody wasn't thinking," said David Farber, an Internet expert and former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission. "They probably uploaded it just to make sure they wouldn't have any trouble, assuming that no one read it, which was probably naive. They're going to have to be a lot more careful."

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had intended to provide individual, printed copies of her decisions to Microsoft and government lawyers at 4 p.m. Friday, then make her decisions available publicly on the court's Web site a half-hour later.

Those plans, outlined in advance to lawyers and journalists, are commonly invoked by judges in major corporate trials and intended to prevent any manipulation of financial markets.

But electronic timestamps for the court's Internet computer indicate that the decisions were published at 2:40 p.m. Friday to a location on its Internet site called "Opinions/2002/Kotelly," which anyone with a Web browser could reach without a password. The rulings, in seven parts, were stored under filenames that included "FinalDecree" and "StateSettlement."

Technicians at the court could have made that location effectively invisible to visitors with a simple change to their computer software.

The first public announcement that the Microsoft decisions were available early came at 3:33 p.m. Friday, when an editor at Slashdot.org (www.slashdot.org), a Web site for technology experts, published them.

A spokesman, Jamie McCarthy, said an unidentified Slashdot reader sent a tip about the files on the court's Web site at 3:09 p.m. Records showed that 4,026 people viewed the information on Slashdot before 4 p.m. Friday, when the judge's decisions were handed to lawyers in Washington.

Copyright (c) 2002 The Associated Press

Updated November 1, 2002 11:05 p.m. EST

Guesss you're just too phUk1n6 5t00|*1D to put the url into a link, eh you fucking nimrod!

here, let me do it for ya:

was this so fucking hard to do?

Sorry! I draw the line at gettin' your wiener unstuck from y'r zipper when you're done peeing. Unbelievable. :-|

A fun toy, but their advertising strategy cannot be condoned.

Several Justices Raise Fears
About Copyright Extensions

By RYAN DEZEMBER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Several Supreme Court justices raised concerns about whether overturning a 1998 copyright-extension law would make a mess of the full body of copyright law.

The high court heard arguments in a case involving a law extending copyrights by 20 years to 70 years after the author's death, and to a total of 95 years for corporate works. At stake is how long the rights to such valuable properties as Mickey Mouse and The Great Gatsby, will continue to enrich their owners.

Archivists, libraries, book companies and others that rely on material in the public domain are fighting to have the latest 20-year copyright extension revoked and such future laws banned. Copyright holders, including AOL Time Warner Inc., said they need control of their intellectual property to fund future works.

Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law School professor who argued against copyright extensions on behalf of Eric Eldred, an Internet publisher, and others, said the 20-year extension violated the Constitution's limit on the duration of copyright protection. Under questioning from the justices, Mr. Lessig said if the court accepted his argument against the 1998 law, then earlier copyright extensions, including the sweeping 1976 copyright law, which extended protections beyond the life of authors, also could be challenged.

That possibility seemed to worry Justice Stephen Breyer and some of his colleagues. The chaos that would ensue would be horrendous, Justice Breyer said.

Charles D. Ossola, counsel for the Intellectual Property Owners Association, which favors the 1998 extension, agreed. Mr. Ossola said after the oral argument that opening the door to challenges of earlier copyright law would create almost unimaginable consequences for businesses already intact.

Copyright law dates back to 1790 when Congress passed the first law giving authors the exclusive rights to their work for 14 years. The original constitutional intent of this law was to motivate creative works by giving exclusive rights for a limited time.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the Constitution had little to say on the matter as it is applied today. What the framers thought is not applicable to many of today's commerce rules, he said. (Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft)

Write to Ryan Dezember at ryan.dezember@dowjones.com

Updated October 10, 2002

Several Justices Raise Fears
About Copyright Extensions

By RYAN DEZEMBER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Several Supreme Court justices raised concerns about whether overturning a 1998 copyright-extension law would make a mess of the full body of copyright law.

The high court heard arguments in a case involving a law extending copyrights by 20 years to 70 years after the author's death, and to a total of 95 years for corporate works. At stake is how long the rights to such valuable properties as Mickey Mouse and The Great Gatsby, will continue to enrich their owners.

Archivists, libraries, book companies and others that rely on material in the public domain are fighting to have the latest 20-year copyright extension revoked and such future laws banned. Copyright holders, including AOL Time Warner Inc., said they need control of their intellectual property to fund future works.

Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law School professor who argued against copyright extensions on behalf of Eric Eldred, an Internet publisher, and others, said the 20-year extension violated the Constitution's limit on the duration of copyright protection. Under questioning from the justices, Mr. Lessig said if the court accepted his argument against the 1998 law, then earlier copyright extensions, including the sweeping 1976 copyright law, which extended protections beyond the life of authors, also could be challenged.

That possibility seemed to worry Justice Stephen Breyer and some of his colleagues. The chaos that would ensue would be horrendous, Justice Breyer said.

Charles D. Ossola, counsel for the Intellectual Property Owners Association, which favors the 1998 extension, agreed. Mr. Ossola said after the oral argument that opening the door to challenges of earlier copyright law would create almost unimaginable consequences for businesses already intact.

Copyright law dates back to 1790 when Congress passed the first law giving authors the exclusive rights to their work for 14 years. The original constitutional intent of this law was to motivate creative works by giving exclusive rights for a limited time.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the Constitution had little to say on the matter as it is applied today. What the framers thought is not applicable to many of today's commerce rules, he said. (Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft)

Write to Ryan Dezember at ryan.dezember@dowjones.com

Updated October 10, 2002

Several Justices Raise Fears
About Copyright Extensions

By RYAN DEZEMBER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Several Supreme Court justices raised concerns about whether overturning a 1998 copyright-extension law would make a mess of the full body of copyright law.

The high court heard arguments in a case involving a law extending copyrights by 20 years to 70 years after the author's death, and to a total of 95 years for corporate works. At stake is how long the rights to such valuable properties as Mickey Mouse and The Great Gatsby, will continue to enrich their owners.

Archivists, libraries, book companies and others that rely on material in the public domain are fighting to have the latest 20-year copyright extension revoked and such future laws banned. Copyright holders, including AOL Time Warner Inc., said they need control of their intellectual property to fund future works.

Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law School professor who argued against copyright extensions on behalf of Eric Eldred, an Internet publisher, and others, said the 20-year extension violated the Constitution's limit on the duration of copyright protection. Under questioning from the justices, Mr. Lessig said if the court accepted his argument against the 1998 law, then earlier copyright extensions, including the sweeping 1976 copyright law, which extended protections beyond the life of authors, also could be challenged.

That possibility seemed to worry Justice Stephen Breyer and some of his colleagues. The chaos that would ensue would be horrendous, Justice Breyer said.

Charles D. Ossola, counsel for the Intellectual Property Owners Association, which favors the 1998 extension, agreed. Mr. Ossola said after the oral argument that opening the door to challenges of earlier copyright law would create almost unimaginable consequences for businesses already intact.

Copyright law dates back to 1790 when Congress passed the first law giving authors the exclusive rights to their work for 14 years. The original constitutional intent of this law was to motivate creative works by giving exclusive rights for a limited time.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the Constitution had little to say on the matter as it is applied today. What the framers thought is not applicable to many of today's commerce rules, he said. (Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft)

Write to Ryan Dezember at ryan.dezember@dowjones.com

Updated October 10, 2002

Several Justices Raise Fears
About Copyright Extensions

By RYAN DEZEMBER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Several Supreme Court justices raised concerns about whether overturning a 1998 copyright-extension law would make a mess of the full body of copyright law.

The high court heard arguments in a case involving a law extending copyrights by 20 years to 70 years after the author's death, and to a total of 95 years for corporate works. At stake is how long the rights to such valuable properties as Mickey Mouse and The Great Gatsby, will continue to enrich their owners.

Archivists, libraries, book companies and others that rely on material in the public domain are fighting to have the latest 20-year copyright extension revoked and such future laws banned. Copyright holders, including AOL Time Warner Inc., said they need control of their intellectual property to fund future works.

Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law School professor who argued against copyright extensions on behalf of Eric Eldred, an Internet publisher, and others, said the 20-year extension violated the Constitution's limit on the duration of copyright protection. Under questioning from the justices, Mr. Lessig said if the court accepted his argument against the 1998 law, then earlier copyright extensions, including the sweeping 1976 copyright law, which extended protections beyond the life of authors, also could be challenged.

That possibility seemed to worry Justice Stephen Breyer and some of his colleagues. The chaos that would ensue would be horrendous, Justice Breyer said.

Charles D. Ossola, counsel for the Intellectual Property Owners Association, which favors the 1998 extension, agreed. Mr. Ossola said after the oral argument that opening the door to challenges of earlier copyright law would create almost unimaginable consequences for businesses already intact.

Copyright law dates back to 1790 when Congress passed the first law giving authors the exclusive rights to their work for 14 years. The original constitutional intent of this law was to motivate creative works by giving exclusive rights for a limited time.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the Constitution had little to say on the matter as it is applied today. What the framers thought is not applicable to many of today's commerce rules, he said. (Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft)

Write to Ryan Dezember at ryan.dezember@dowjones.com

Updated October 10, 2002

I've seen alot of these, "why isn't the USA media reporting this" type comments, and all I can say is try reading a REAL newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal, which not only has the article but also list a RIAAvsVerizon FAQ , a PDF of the Recording Industry Association of America's July 24 motion, and a link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's court filings page for the case!

The link for this article is here.

And by the way, if you want quality news coverage, typically you've got to pay for it.

Music Companies Try to Force
Verizon to Identify Subscriber

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Music companies tried to persuade a judge on Friday to let them obtain names of Internet file-swappers without going to court first, a move that could dictate how copyright holders deal with Internet piracy in the future.

Internet service provider Verizon Communications Inc. is resisting the music industry's subpoena, saying that it could turn Internet providers into a turnstile for piracy suits and put innocent customers at risk.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who heard the case, lamented ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to uphold copyright laws on the Internet while shielding technology companies from direct liability.

Congress "could have made this statute clearer," Judge Bates said. "This statute is not organized as being consistent with the argument for either side." Judge Bates said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers for both sides had no guess of when a decision might arrive.

The subpoena hearing, which is normally a tame affair, was contentious because the music industry sees it as a test case. If it succeeds, it plans to send reams of cease-and-desist letters to scare file-swappers into taking their collections offline.

Until now, copyright holders have relied on requests sent to Internet providers to take action on their own against suspected pirates. Almost all Internet providers forbid sharing copyrighted material without permission. But that can take a lot of time, and makes copyright holders reliant on Internet providers to enforce the law. Internet providers don't always respond as well or as quickly as music and movie publishers would prefer. They think individual letters from the maker itself might work better.

"Wouldn't that be a lot easier way to let people know that they are in fact not anonymous and there could be consequences?" asked Cary Sherman, the Recording Industry Association of America's general counsel.

Verizon said that since the hundreds of songs up for trade by the anonymous Verizon customer at the center of the case sit on the person's computer rather than Verizon's network, it isn't required to automatically give up the subscriber's name.

"Verizon was a passive conduit at most," said Eric Holder, a former Justice Department prosecutor who represented Verizon. Mr. Holder said the music industry's strategy could create a contentious relationship between Verizon and its customers and put the Internet provider in the position of handing over names to the music companies without a judicial determination of piracy. "We also don't want to be the policeman in this process," he said.

Lawyers for the recording industry rejected Verizon's arguments that it had little obligations in the process. Industry lawyer Donald Verrilli said no type of service provider is exempt from having to identify a potential music pirate, no matter where the songs sit.

Mr. Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that its customers have a right to privacy. "You don't have a First Amendment right to steal copyright works," he said.

The judge disagreed with Mr. Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen. "Here, there's only an allegation of infringement," Judge Bates said.

Judge Bates gave few hints as to how he might rule. He asked many detailed questions of both sides. He called some Verizon positions vague, but showed little patience with other arguments advanced by the music industry and movie studios, which also argued on behalf of music publishers.

Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella, a person can find virtually any song or movie -- sometimes even before it's released in stores --- and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about three million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.

-- Copyright (c) 2002 Associated Press

Updated October 4, 2002 9:43 p.m. EDT

I've seen alot of these, "why isn't the USA media reporting this" type comments, and all I can say is try reading a REAL newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal, which not only has the article but also list a RIAAvsVerizon FAQ , a PDF of the Recording Industry Association of America's July 24 motion, and a link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's court filings page for the case!

The link for this article is here.

And by the way, if you want quality news coverage, typically you've got to pay for it.

Music Companies Try to Force
Verizon to Identify Subscriber

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Music companies tried to persuade a judge on Friday to let them obtain names of Internet file-swappers without going to court first, a move that could dictate how copyright holders deal with Internet piracy in the future.

Internet service provider Verizon Communications Inc. is resisting the music industry's subpoena, saying that it could turn Internet providers into a turnstile for piracy suits and put innocent customers at risk.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who heard the case, lamented ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to uphold copyright laws on the Internet while shielding technology companies from direct liability.

Congress "could have made this statute clearer," Judge Bates said. "This statute is not organized as being consistent with the argument for either side." Judge Bates said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers for both sides had no guess of when a decision might arrive.

The subpoena hearing, which is normally a tame affair, was contentious because the music industry sees it as a test case. If it succeeds, it plans to send reams of cease-and-desist letters to scare file-swappers into taking their collections offline.

Until now, copyright holders have relied on requests sent to Internet providers to take action on their own against suspected pirates. Almost all Internet providers forbid sharing copyrighted material without permission. But that can take a lot of time, and makes copyright holders reliant on Internet providers to enforce the law. Internet providers don't always respond as well or as quickly as music and movie publishers would prefer. They think individual letters from the maker itself might work better.

"Wouldn't that be a lot easier way to let people know that they are in fact not anonymous and there could be consequences?" asked Cary Sherman, the Recording Industry Association of America's general counsel.

Verizon said that since the hundreds of songs up for trade by the anonymous Verizon customer at the center of the case sit on the person's computer rather than Verizon's network, it isn't required to automatically give up the subscriber's name.

"Verizon was a passive conduit at most," said Eric Holder, a former Justice Department prosecutor who represented Verizon. Mr. Holder said the music industry's strategy could create a contentious relationship between Verizon and its customers and put the Internet provider in the position of handing over names to the music companies without a judicial determination of piracy. "We also don't want to be the policeman in this process," he said.

Lawyers for the recording industry rejected Verizon's arguments that it had little obligations in the process. Industry lawyer Donald Verrilli said no type of service provider is exempt from having to identify a potential music pirate, no matter where the songs sit.

Mr. Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that its customers have a right to privacy. "You don't have a First Amendment right to steal copyright works," he said.

The judge disagreed with Mr. Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen. "Here, there's only an allegation of infringement," Judge Bates said.

Judge Bates gave few hints as to how he might rule. He asked many detailed questions of both sides. He called some Verizon positions vague, but showed little patience with other arguments advanced by the music industry and movie studios, which also argued on behalf of music publishers.

Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella, a person can find virtually any song or movie -- sometimes even before it's released in stores --- and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about three million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.

-- Copyright (c) 2002 Associated Press

Updated October 4, 2002 9:43 p.m. EDT

I've seen alot of these, "why isn't the USA media reporting this" type comments, and all I can say is try reading a REAL newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal, which not only has the article but also list a RIAAvsVerizon FAQ , a PDF of the Recording Industry Association of America's July 24 motion, and a link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's court filings page for the case!

The link for this article is here.

And by the way, if you want quality news coverage, typically you've got to pay for it.

Music Companies Try to Force
Verizon to Identify Subscriber

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Music companies tried to persuade a judge on Friday to let them obtain names of Internet file-swappers without going to court first, a move that could dictate how copyright holders deal with Internet piracy in the future.

Internet service provider Verizon Communications Inc. is resisting the music industry's subpoena, saying that it could turn Internet providers into a turnstile for piracy suits and put innocent customers at risk.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who heard the case, lamented ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to uphold copyright laws on the Internet while shielding technology companies from direct liability.

Congress "could have made this statute clearer," Judge Bates said. "This statute is not organized as being consistent with the argument for either side." Judge Bates said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers for both sides had no guess of when a decision might arrive.

The subpoena hearing, which is normally a tame affair, was contentious because the music industry sees it as a test case. If it succeeds, it plans to send reams of cease-and-desist letters to scare file-swappers into taking their collections offline.

Until now, copyright holders have relied on requests sent to Internet providers to take action on their own against suspected pirates. Almost all Internet providers forbid sharing copyrighted material without permission. But that can take a lot of time, and makes copyright holders reliant on Internet providers to enforce the law. Internet providers don't always respond as well or as quickly as music and movie publishers would prefer. They think individual letters from the maker itself might work better.

"Wouldn't that be a lot easier way to let people know that they are in fact not anonymous and there could be consequences?" asked Cary Sherman, the Recording Industry Association of America's general counsel.

Verizon said that since the hundreds of songs up for trade by the anonymous Verizon customer at the center of the case sit on the person's computer rather than Verizon's network, it isn't required to automatically give up the subscriber's name.

"Verizon was a passive conduit at most," said Eric Holder, a former Justice Department prosecutor who represented Verizon. Mr. Holder said the music industry's strategy could create a contentious relationship between Verizon and its customers and put the Internet provider in the position of handing over names to the music companies without a judicial determination of piracy. "We also don't want to be the policeman in this process," he said.

Lawyers for the recording industry rejected Verizon's arguments that it had little obligations in the process. Industry lawyer Donald Verrilli said no type of service provider is exempt from having to identify a potential music pirate, no matter where the songs sit.

Mr. Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that its customers have a right to privacy. "You don't have a First Amendment right to steal copyright works," he said.

The judge disagreed with Mr. Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen. "Here, there's only an allegation of infringement," Judge Bates said.

Judge Bates gave few hints as to how he might rule. He asked many detailed questions of both sides. He called some Verizon positions vague, but showed little patience with other arguments advanced by the music industry and movie studios, which also argued on behalf of music publishers.

Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella, a person can find virtually any song or movie -- sometimes even before it's released in stores --- and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about three million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.

-- Copyright (c) 2002 Associated Press

Updated October 4, 2002 9:43 p.m. EDT

I've seen alot of these, "why isn't the USA media reporting this" type comments, and all I can say is try reading a REAL newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal, which not only has the article but also list a RIAAvsVerizon FAQ , a PDF of the Recording Industry Association of America's July 24 motion, and a link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's court filings page for the case!

The link for this article is here.

And by the way, if you want quality news coverage, typically you've got to pay for it.

Music Companies Try to Force
Verizon to Identify Subscriber

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Music companies tried to persuade a judge on Friday to let them obtain names of Internet file-swappers without going to court first, a move that could dictate how copyright holders deal with Internet piracy in the future.

Internet service provider Verizon Communications Inc. is resisting the music industry's subpoena, saying that it could turn Internet providers into a turnstile for piracy suits and put innocent customers at risk.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who heard the case, lamented ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to uphold copyright laws on the Internet while shielding technology companies from direct liability.

Congress "could have made this statute clearer," Judge Bates said. "This statute is not organized as being consistent with the argument for either side." Judge Bates said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers for both sides had no guess of when a decision might arrive.

The subpoena hearing, which is normally a tame affair, was contentious because the music industry sees it as a test case. If it succeeds, it plans to send reams of cease-and-desist letters to scare file-swappers into taking their collections offline.

Until now, copyright holders have relied on requests sent to Internet providers to take action on their own against suspected pirates. Almost all Internet providers forbid sharing copyrighted material without permission. But that can take a lot of time, and makes copyright holders reliant on Internet providers to enforce the law. Internet providers don't always respond as well or as quickly as music and movie publishers would prefer. They think individual letters from the maker itself might work better.

"Wouldn't that be a lot easier way to let people know that they are in fact not anonymous and there could be consequences?" asked Cary Sherman, the Recording Industry Association of America's general counsel.

Verizon said that since the hundreds of songs up for trade by the anonymous Verizon customer at the center of the case sit on the person's computer rather than Verizon's network, it isn't required to automatically give up the subscriber's name.

"Verizon was a passive conduit at most," said Eric Holder, a former Justice Department prosecutor who represented Verizon. Mr. Holder said the music industry's strategy could create a contentious relationship between Verizon and its customers and put the Internet provider in the position of handing over names to the music companies without a judicial determination of piracy. "We also don't want to be the policeman in this process," he said.

Lawyers for the recording industry rejected Verizon's arguments that it had little obligations in the process. Industry lawyer Donald Verrilli said no type of service provider is exempt from having to identify a potential music pirate, no matter where the songs sit.

Mr. Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that its customers have a right to privacy. "You don't have a First Amendment right to steal copyright works," he said.

The judge disagreed with Mr. Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen. "Here, there's only an allegation of infringement," Judge Bates said.

Judge Bates gave few hints as to how he might rule. He asked many detailed questions of both sides. He called some Verizon positions vague, but showed little patience with other arguments advanced by the music industry and movie studios, which also argued on behalf of music publishers.

Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella, a person can find virtually any song or movie -- sometimes even before it's released in stores --- and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about three million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.

-- Copyright (c) 2002 Associated Press

Updated October 4, 2002 9:43 p.m. EDT

My article on how a Spanish Porn company is trying to buy Napster from the WSJ (need subscription) was rejected.

Now what about all the porn being traded online. We're talking 200 MB files of people gettin it on. Has Vivid been suing?

By Walt Mossberg's substitute Nick Wingfield in his

Personal Technology column

Whatever. It uses a frikkin keyboard -- how innovative is that? What's worse, it uses a QWERTY keyboard. C'mon! When are these manufacturers going to define something really useful. The Wall Street Personal Journal has a review as well and they point out that Danger Inc. (great name) is staffed by people from Apple and General Magic. Obviously, Danger Inc. got stuck with the lame-os who were unwilling to persue handwriting recognition. (or voice recognition, or a b.a.t. keypad, or even DVORAK keyboard.)

The screen turns around. Yay.
_______________________

And that's even if it makes it past CNET or ZDNET and into the mainstream press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, etc. more of the people who vote still read newspapers and watch news programs for their news, so they'll read a pro-RIAA spin and agree with them.

Yikes! I'm not sure how to change the views of the general public, but I know that I already wrote my congressmen to let them know how I feel from a professional and personal level. Will that change my congressmen's point-of-view? Maybe not, but at least they know how one of their constituents feel, just like how the democratic process is suppose to work.

...end rant

Most U.S. newspapers are affiliated with the AP and Reuters, though a smaller number use the Agence France-Presse, which is more popular internationally. Then there's United Press International, which is practically dead, so few papers use it.

Knight Ridder and Gannett are different animals altogether. They are huge corporations which own dozens of tiny newspapers you've never heard of and a few larger papers (USA Today is Gannett's flagship paper, while the San Jose Mercury News is KR's, though KR's Miami Herald is a better paper). One of the "advantages" of these giant corporations is that they share stories with other papers in the corporation, which enables a paper in Fargo to cover an event in San Francisco without having to put up the money for a regional bureau.

Better papers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, etc.) maintain their own bureaus outside their hometowns (for instance, the Washington Post has about 10 bureaus in U.S. cities outside DC [Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc.], and about 12 bureaus in international cities [London, Tokyo, Moscow, etc.]), so they use a far higher percentage of their own content, but they still use the AP, Reuters and AFP for stories they can't afford to cover themselves or don't have the time to reach. However, you won't see a Knight Ridder story in a paper like the New York Times.

The big difference here is that aggregators/metabrowsers are computers that display headlines without discretion. Newspapers employ editors who have been trained in the art/science of news judgment. For this reason, a metabrowser will quickly become exceptionally boring and irrelevant.

Is the desire for a cleanup related to this Wall Street journal article (registration required) where scientists are warning that a missle defense program, and a resulting space-war, could fill earth's orbit with debris, making space research/travel impossible? Is the concern here, that we be able to cleanup space after a war, and not clean it up now?

I would post examples from The NYTimes, but they don't let you see previous issues of the paper online for free. However, as I recall their picks closely mirrored The Washington Post's:

The Washington Post
Top Story: Cyber-Attacks by Al Qaeda Feared
No. 2 Story: SEC Charges WorldCom With Fraud
No. 3 Story: U.S. Court Votes to Bar Pledge of Allegiance

The Los angeles Times
Top Story: 'Tweens: From Dolls to Thongs
One of the store mannequins wears a fringed denim skirt riding low on the hips and a top pushed high on the midriff. Another has shorts that roll down on the tummy and a one-shoulder top.
No. 2 Story: Pledge of Allegiance Violates Constitution, Court Declares
No. 3 Story: WorldCom Hit With Federal Fraud Lawsuit

The Los Angeles Times shows a consistent bias toward "Reader's Digest" type stories that are entertaining and give you something to gossip about but don't really tell you anything of value. I also get the sense that many LA Times reporters are really failed screenplay writers who can't let go of the need to create drama. However, they do occasionally print something worth reading.

The LA Times is owned by The Chicago Tribune , which puts even less original content on its Web site and is more "in-your-face" about pressuring you to subscribe.

I suspect Slashdot would link to The Wall Street Journal more often if the paper made more than 1% of its content available to non-paying subscribers. (I had a paid subscription to wsj.com for about a year, but I no longer do because it's just not worth that much to me.)

I'd like to read Le Monde , but the French refuse to publish an English version. Go figure.

All of Knight-Ridder's newspapers (The San Jose Mercury News , Miami Herald , Philadelphia Inquirer , et al) have been crippled by the "RealCities Network" which forces all of its sites to use the same content-poor, ad-rich design. The saddest story of the group is the SJMercury though, which has just fallen apart since the parent company began slashing costs and forcing the RealCities conformity on its once industry-leading site. The Miami Herald is an unofficial training school for future Washington Post reporters, but that doesn't matter if you can't find their content on the Web.

Slashdot doesn't link to the Financial Times often (ever?), though it's a great paper. It just doesn't turn out a lot of unique content that's of interest to most Slashdot readers.

Newspapers aside, Slashdot has linked to CNN and the BBC in the past, though not the CBC . ABC, CBS and NBC generally provide watered down news for people who don't like to read newspapers -- not Slashdot readers.

Slashdot often links to MSNBC , but I expect that will begin to decline -- MSNBC.com's founding editor (Merrill Brown, a former Washington Post reporter) recently announced that he's resigning after 6 years to pursue other, undisclosed "opportunities." The New York Times noted on June 12 (you'll have to pay for the archived version of the story) that he offhandedly mentioned that MSNBC.com is about to be swallowed by MSN for economic reasons. (In other words, Microsoft put its foot down and said financial concerns outweigh editorial concerns.)

The International Herald-Tribune writes some of its own content, but a lot of the paper is an amalgamation of New York Times and Washington Post stories.

I haven't read the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Seattle Times in a while, but you may find some good technology stories there.

Bottom Line: Slashdot links to a disproportionate number of New York Times and Washington Post stories because both papers' sites post a lot of content and that content is top notch. It also helps that they're among the most recognizable names in journalism, but the Slashdot system is set up to allow editors to pick from the best stories that are submitted, regardless of the content provider's brand recognition. If you read a good story somewhere, submit it -- the quality of the story is more important than the misguided registration policies of the content provider. And if I've missed a good site people should be reading, reply to this message and let people know.

So does the WSJ, although they want money for their logins. Worth it in my mind, although I think that I deserve not to be bombarded by Flash ads on the front page if I pay for it.

Just this morning I was reading about how Disney is starting to loose money on their animated films. The story is on the front page of todays WSJ and it lays out what the price/performace ratios of the last few movies were.

From the article:

The Lion King 1994
Production Budget: $50 million
U.S. Box Office Take: $312 million

Hercules 1997
Production Budget: $100 million
U.S. Box Office Take: $99 million

Tarzan 1999
Production Budget: $150 million
U.S. Box Office Take: $171 million

The Emperor's New Groove 2001
Production Budget: $100 million
U.S. Box Office Take: $89.2 million

Lilo & Stitch
Production Budget: $80+ million
U.S. Box Office Take: Unknown

Of course it could be because of the declining quality of these movies, the only one I've seen is Lion King, which was a pretty good flick IMHO. I wonder if the lower TCO argument of Linux is starting to kick in a little bit. This will be interesting to see.

He says the UI is badly designed, the MSOffice importing is badly flawed, it resorts to heavy techie jargon too often, and it's just plain buggy.

Software development--particularly business software development--isn't about computer "science" or "engineering." It is about communication--communication amongst your team, communication with the computer, and communication through the computer with the end user. Communication is the key.

In hiring offshore developers you face substantially more complex challenges than you do working with a telecommuter. People who telecommute have established relationships with their employer--so they already know the implications of the tone of your voice, and what you mean when you preface your sentence with "I don't mean to be rude, but...." An offshore development team doesn't know that--you don't have the kind of relationship, based on trust, common bonds, and plain old time, that are necessary to make a team work.

There is a simple way to deal with that problem. It is called an airplane ticket. You go to them, or they (all of them) come to you--naturally that means you're the one on the plane. You can find a whole range of airfares, and a whole range of hotel prices, and a whole range of expenses involved in traveling literally halfway around the world. And unless your project is huge, you'll blow any conceivable cost savings on the travel.

You have other options
One (warning: self-serving promo coming) is to outsource to a consulting firm. They'll charge you a fee--but at the end of the project they will go away. You don't have any overhead costs, you don't have any headcount, and you don't have costs for machines and toolsets that you no longer need.

Another option is to consider outsourcing to an "offshore" country that is considerably easier to get to. If you're in the United States, you might look very carefully at consulting firms in Canada: the Canadian exchange rate makes tech workers up north very attractive. And Canadian "offshore" development avoids a lot of the problems with outsourcing to the Indian subcontinent: Canadian firms are (mostly) on the same time zones as U.S. firms; Canadians and Americans share a common language--most of the time; and Canadians and Americans share a common cultural heritage (most of the time). In general Canadians are more polite than Americans, more funny than Americans, and perhaps more serious about their work than a lot of Americans.

Believe it or not, sometimes outsourcing deals don't work out....
An old dictum of business law says that you don't need a contract when everybody is making money. You only need the contract when things go bad. That's true--and that's why you'll need a solid contract before you start any project with any outsourcing firm. It is a lot easier to find legal help with contracts between U.S. and Canadian firms than it is to find legal help with contracts between U.S. firms and Indian firms. And--(look for articles on this subject in Fortune or The Wall Street Journal) the legal climate in India is not as stable as you'll find in developed countries. Long before Enron hit the headlines with its accounting problems, Enron was embroiled in a long-term dispute (see this BBC article, for instance) with the government of India. There are all kinds of charges and counter-charges, but many in the West have viewed the debacle as proof that in India contracts are not nearly as ironclad as we view them to be. If it comes to it, it is substantially easier to litigate in Canada than in India.

Bottom line:

• There is lots of outsourcing talent here in the U.S., and your total project cost with a small consulting firm can be surprisingly affordable.
• There is loads of talent in Canada where time zones, language, culture, and ease of travel are not problems.
• The costs of outsourcing to the Indian subcontinent include a lot of travel, a fair bit of legal and contractual complexity, and a potentially ugly downside in the event of a project failure.

More interesting is the news today that Sony and Real have announced a tie-up. They'd already announced an alliance to use Real software in the PS2 - this is a further development, with Sony buying a stake in Real with the aim of using its software in other consumer devices.

Real has put out a press release here, which says: "Sony plans to adopt these combined digital distribution solutions in a variety of networked CE products such as Sony's networked audio products and Sony Computer Entertainment's PlayStation2 computer entertainment system."

The Wall Street Journal notes that the deal brings together two Microsoft rivals - the WSJ story requires $$$+registration, but the basics are:

The companies didn't announce specific product agreements, but said their research and development groups will regularly collaborate on developing new technologies. Sony said it would adopt RealNetworks' media technologies broadly in a variety of consumer electronics devices with network connections to personal computers and the Internet, and RealNetworks will consider using a Sony antipiracy format in its software.

While the financial side of the deal is small and RealNetworks is in no immediate need of cash, the investment gives Sony at least a symbolic stake in the future of RealNetworks. RealNetworks competes fiercely with Microsoft in the market for Internet audio and video software, and it has joined other companies in accusing Microsoft of anticompetitive practices that threaten their businesses. Sony and Microsoft, meanwhile, became archcompetitors in the videogame market with Microsoft's introduction late last year of the Xbox, a heavily promoted rival to Sony's market-leading PlayStation 2.

Dave Fester, a Microsoft general manager, said the alliance with Sony wouldn't affect the appeal of Microsoft's own media software to electronics companies, but adding that it could "drive a wedge between Real and other consumer electronics manufacturers."

The WSJ chimed in on this last week...you guys are behind the curve once again

* 2002-04-18 07:06:54 Copying Limits Stifle Innovation (articles,news) (rejected)

Second, I'd like to know if Mossberg has ever tried Linux. Seeing as he's a "tech" columnist, maybe he should try something outside the norm. Then again, the majority of WSJ readers are windoze users and probably aren't interested in whether or not something runs Linux anyway. But that's a totally different discussion.

Third, I love this excerpt from the article " I used a new Dell laptop running Windows XP. I installed the Sharp software successfully, following the company's instructions to the letter, and set it all up to synchronize with Microsoft Outlook. But, when I pressed the synchronize button on the unit's cradle, or clicked on the synchronize command in the synchronization software, nothing happened." Did you remember to reboot?

Forth (Disclaimer and Apology for flaming Mossberg), Mossberg and my options probably differ significantly seeing as I'm biased towards linux. I'm glad Mossberg threw this at the end, it actually makes me consider getting one, "All in all, my advice is to stay away from the Zaurus SL-5500, unless you're a hard-core Linux fan."

A couple of weeks ago, Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal did the same thing in his article, "Digital Consumer Takes Up the Fight Against Copyright Plans in Congress".

In the article, he proposes a whole new digital copyright law that gives the user back their priveleges to make copies of the content they have legally obtained.

He proposed the following rights:

- The right to "time-shift" audio or video content; that is, to record it for later playback.

- The right to "space-shift" music or videos; that is, to copy material to blank CDs, multiple PCs, or portable players in different locations.

- The right to make backup copies.

- The right to use the content on any platform they choose: a Windows PC, a Macintosh, a DVD player, whatever.

- The right to translate content into different formats.

I think this, along with Roger Ebert's comments should hopefully catch the eye of Congress and the RIAA and actually get something done. Kudos to the two of them for realizing that our rights are being infringed upon.