Microsoft to Fight Crime With Spammer's Millions

daria42 writes "It looks as if the $7 million Microsoft won from spam king Scott Richter won't go into a Swiss bank account and never be seen again after all. The company plans to dedicate a cool $5 mil to helping law enforcement agencies address computer-related crimes. Another $1 million will go to New York State to "expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults", with the rest being flagged to pay Microsoft's legal costs."

Comments

Hmm...

[Darren Winsper]

Does this mean we're going to see Bill Gates in a bizarre spandex outfit combating spammers around the world? I smell a Ben Affleck film!

Re:Hmm...

[GreyPoopon]

I smell a Ben Affleck film!

No, that's my vomit that you smell. ;)

Re:Hmm...

[wknoxwalker]

I agree with the parent; the first image I had when I read the headline was of a new, microsoft funded range of superheroes. "We have the technology".. I think it might be a better use for the money than the current destination. How much of the money to fight crime will be spent curbing 'piracy' and 'illegal software useage', compared to some of the realer issues the internet faces, (in my eyes, child porn, spam and other more anti-social ills).

Re:Hmm...

[hcpxvi]

Surely, a benign thought compared to Steve Ballmer as Robin. Not to mention Linus as (duck now, you can hear it coming) the penguin.

Re:Hmm...

[216pi]

immediately remove that horrible picture from my mind!

Re:Hmm...

[Darth_brooks]

I smell a Ben Affleck film!

Check the bottom of your shoes, I think you stepped in something.

I keeeed, I keeeed

Re:Hmm...

[Drooling Iguana]

Is there a difference?

Re:Hmm...

[grimJester]

...just had a horrible thought of Bill Gates in a Batman costume. Old Batman that is - you know, spandex.

The silly grin he always seems to have glued on (Gates, not Batman) would be more suitable for the Penguin.

That's disturbing in so many ways...

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is the money is not being earmarked specifically to fight SPAM. I find this unfortunate and disappointing. But, then again, this is Microsoft we are talking about. My expectations should not be so high.

Re:Hmm...

[wowbagger]

"Silly gring he (Gates) always seems to have glued on...."

Would that not make The Joker a better fit?

Re:Hmm...

[rubberbando]

Yes! And he will be known as the Spammy Avenger with his trusty sidekick, the Great Grape Ape (Steve Balmer painted purple).

Re:Hmm...

[Hoi Polloi]

Yes, Bill Gates is running around in a bizarre spandex outfit but unfortunately he isn't using it to combat spammers.

Re:Hmm...

[robertjw]

I was picturing more of a Batman look. Cool tool belt, scary hat, ultra expensive car (that's where the $5 mil will go) and a cape.

Re:Hmm...

[bobcat7677]

Bah, capes are so passe! Haven't you seen The Incredibles?

Re:Hmm...

[Craig_P92669]

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was picturing something more like this:
Pie Man!

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://techakke.com/2005/08/11/supergates/

Re:Hmm...

[ToasterofDOOM]

YES!! **runs off yelling mindlessly "Criminals! Criminals! Criminals! ..."**

Re:Hmm...

[Omnieiunium]

Now that is truly something I would pay $7.50 to see... multiple times!

Re:Hmm...

[pmazer]

with his trusty sidekick, the Great Grape Ape (Steve Balmer painted purple).

I thought he was called Bonzi Buddy

Re:Hmm...

[Lotharus]

Exxxxxxactly. I have no insider information, but I have a very strong hunch that the crimes Microsoft is aiming to quell with this laughable donation is pirating Microsoft products.

Not enough

[Perl-Pusher]

When you have billions you can be really generous with millions. The price of good advertising is probably higher. Giving the paltry five million away buys a lot of good will from New York state.

Re:Not enough

[datadriven]

So true, that 5M is roughly equivalent to throwing a quarter in the tip cup at your local coffee shop.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad people are so mindlessly entrenched in their little fascist states that the point that its money going to cops is overlooked completely.

microsoft is big brother. new york is a police state. population BB passion doubleplusungood.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, MS decides to donate 5 million and it is a PR stunt. They don't and they are sleaze-bags for keeping all the money. Can people be satisfied at all these days? You could've better pulled a "5 million not enough, should have given more" and it would have been more insightful then whatever you just said

Re:Not enough

[goldspider]

It's called charity for a reason; they're giving of their own free will. Who are you, or anyone, to tell somebody else how generous they should be?

Charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is just a nice word for slavery.

Re:Not enough

[jkrise]

I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble... read PR. Also, 5mn is a miniscule microscopic portion of the amount MS spends in R&D anyways, so it's doubtful this money is gonna help fight crime or spam. Or improve the IT skills of the average New Yorker.
-

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, MS is a for-profit company. They don't have any obligation to fight spammers. They could do just like 1 million other software companies around the world and do absolutely nothing. But what do they do? They actually take a spammer to court, and when they win they donate the millions earned to the fight. And you have the stomach to say it's not enough? Enough for what, for whom?

Anything more than 0 is "enough".

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called charity for a reason; they're giving of their own free will. Who are you, or anyone, to tell somebody else how generous they should be?

Don't you dare question NeoLibs. They know whats best for my money, your money, and certainly MS's money.

Re:Not enough

[goldspider]

And I repeat that the GGP has no place to judge the merits of someone else's charitable work. He is, of course, free to donate to a cause he deems worthy.

Re:Not enough

[halber_mensch]

I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble.

Also when the money is table scraps from the strongarm lawsuit campaigns that Microsoft has ben flinging around. I am wary that this 'donation' is purely a persuasive gesture - which comes at zero cost to Microsoft - intended to persuade the public that Microsoft should be free to flex its litigious muscles - because when Microsoft wins a case, well we all win now don't we?

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

And we can be sure that what little the GGGP donates, we'll not have a Slashdot article on it. This article only furthers the PR dividend for MS, and the effect on cyber-crime and cyber-intelligence is going to be zero.

Re:Not enough

[Mr_Silver]

I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble... read PR. Also, 5mn is a miniscule microscopic portion of the amount MS spends in R&D anyways, so it's doubtful this money is gonna help fight crime or spam. Or improve the IT skills of the average New Yorker.

Who cares if it's such a small percentage? The recipients of the $6 million that Microsoft didn't actually have to donate to them definately don't care.

$6 million is a hell of a lot of money irrespective of who gives it and their own monetary situation. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Unless of course you would have rathered that Microsoft kept the entire lot for "legal fees"?

Re:Not enough

[DigitumDei]

1. Bash Microsoft no matter what they do.
2. Get mod points
3. ???
4. Profit!

As always this is slashdot. If MS closed up shop, put their source code in the public domain, and gave all their money to starving street kids, close to half the posts would be insulting them or questioning their motives.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

who is he to judge someone elses intentions with charity. It really pisses me off when people slag off companies when they give to charity, if enough people slag them off then eventually they will stop doing it. Just be happy they gave to a good cause rather than to a PR company. Charity whether it is done for your own PR or purely from the bottom of your heart is irrelevant.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

"Charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is just a nice word for slavery."

Charity, when widely publicized, is just a whitewashed word for advertising.

Anyway, who's telling Microsoft how generous they should be? This is a discussion group, we're discussing, and there's damned good reason for cynicism about Microsoft's motives.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Then perhaps the Slashdot editors shouldn't have posted the story and further the Evil Empire's PR campaign.

Of course, I suspect the prospect of a good old-fashioned M$-bash-fest was simply too tempting.

Re:Not enough

[Skye16]

That's a little over the top, isn't it? To me, it implies only charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is a nice word for slavery. What about _anything_ else that is compelled through coersion or threat? Wouldn't those be other nice words for slavery? Is a parent who insists his/her child puts their toys away after playing with them a slave owner? Is the child then a slave? What about being told to keep the noise down in my apartment? Am I now a slave because my neighbors demand quiet at 3am?

If so, I say the word "slavery" has no meaning. Everyone on the planet is then a slave, in one way or another. Progressing through this argument further, if everyone is a slave, then surely it's a question of degree. Can you honestly say "forcing someone to give 3$ to the United Way" is anything like being kidnapped, chained up aboard a ship, taken to a new land, sold to the highest bidder, forced into labor (possibly sexual), beaten or whipped when performance is not living up to expectations, and then cast aside when they no longer serve a purpose? This still happens even today. Are they both slavery? Possibly. Are they close in terms of degree? I would say no, not even fucking remotely.

Re:Not enough

[Perl-Pusher]

Hmm! Looking back at my title I should have been more specific. It's not enough money for a billion dollar company to worry about keeping! I didn't mean it was a slam on Microsoft, just a shrewed business move. I think the spammer got off too easy. The courts should go after the source of the spammers income too.

Re:Not enough

[SiO2]

Charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is just a nice word for slavery

I think the word extortion is more appropriate than slavery.

SiO2

Re:Not enough

[DoofusOfDeath]

Actually, it's the U.S. laws of corporate governance that say say a corporation can't be altruistic. Publicly traded corporations must maximize profits of their shareholders.

I can't find the actual law that says this, but people who seem reliable cite summarize the law, including:

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/hinkle y213.htm

Re:Not enough

[goldspider]

"What about _anything_ else that is compelled through coersion or threat?"

I wasn't talking about "anything else", just charity.

"Can you honestly say "forcing someone to give 3$ to the United Way" is anything like being kidnapped, chained up aboard a ship, taken to a new land..."

Certainly, the scope is different, but the underlying absense of free will is the same.

Re:Not enough

[goldspider]

And I call it "taxation". :)

Re:Not enough

[Skye16]

I know, I was expanding the argument. If charity can be used, so can anything else. You, in specific, were using charity, but there is no reason that anything that is compelled through coersion or threat is a nice name for slavery. And maybe that's true, but, again, it's a question of degree. And, frankly, if we're all slaves, then it's only the truly horrific degrees that I will concern myself with - everything else is relatively inconsequential.

Re:Not enough

[D-Cypell]

How did I know that the top post on this story would be slamming Microsoft because they didnt do more.

I am no fan of Microsoft software, I spend a good deal of time discussing Microsoft alternative with friends, family and collegues, but frankly people with your attitude are hurting this cause.

When folks read posts like yours they begin to get the impression that people who critize microsoft do so because it is 'trendy' to hate the leader. They then assume that my evangulism of tools like Firefox are just due to techie jealousy.

Microsoft have done some good here. They have seriously hurt a spammer and they have used some of the proceeds to help the community. Ok, its reasonably good PR but I, for one, would rather they got their advertising from acts like than from greasing the already very greasy palms of mass media.

You can only cry wolf so many times.... lets do it when it counts!

Re:Not enough

[Skye16]

Sigh, I meant:

"You, in specific, were using charity, but there is no reason that anything compelled through coersion or threat won't be a nice name for slavery."

My apologies for any confusion.

(I fucking hate this "It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" bullshit. I've had it go up to 34 minutes before. Maybe it'll work if I post this using the-cloak.com ;x)

Re:Not enough

[cptbarkey]

i think this token donation is rather retarded, this kind of money should be donated to law enforcement instead to help prosecute them, that is more of the challenge!

Re:Not enough

[Cat_Byte]

$5M to one organization that simply tracks down spammers or whatever else they do is enough to keep them going for quite some time. Spend a few $100K on equipment, probably about $50K/person salary average, other costs of business....this is probably more than everyone thinks. Unless it's an obscenely large department that is out of control on spending, this should tide them over for awhile and alieve the need for them asking for more tax $$ or laying people off. Everyone is comparing the contribution to total MS $$ rather than the contribution to the receivers needs.

Re:Not enough

[dakkon1024]

Charity? Call it what you want but this is no different then a retail store hiring a security guard.

Re:Not enough

[Flamesplash]

They already give away billions a year, this is just one thing they happen to be doing. And that's just Microsoft. Bill gives away tons of his personal money, via the Bill and Melinda Gates Fondation, too.

Re:Not enough

[henrygb]

So you can find spammers for a low cost. (Looking in a spamtrap or your inbox is cheap too.) But doing something about them costs a lot more.

Re:Not enough

[neoform]

yeah, problem is, i can bet you microsoft isn't going to be giving them cash. instead they're going to give them $7 million in microsoft products.. which as we all know is worth much much less than that. not to mention they can use this as a tax write-off..

Re:Not enough

[AviLazar]

Why is this person modded insightful?

Dude, just say thank you and be done with it. Bill doesn't owe you, New York or anyone else any money for things like Spam. He did not create it. Just appreciate the fact he is doing this.

Re:Not enough

[pointguy]

Charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is just a nice word for slavery. Uh... no. No, it isn't. The word you're looking for is extortion.

Re:Not enough

[walt-sjc]

Sorry, $6M in the business world is not much at all. It's very very little when you need quality tech investigators, lawyers, equipment, etc.

Keep in mind that most spam is now sent from trojaned Windows boxes. While end users are responsible for keeping their machines patched, they wouldn't need patching to this extent if MS had designed their software with security and reliability as the top priority rather than useless features and eye candy. For a long time, MS refused to fix the "autoexecute everything on reception" mentality in their email clients saying that their customers "demanded" such functionality. Furthermore, MS has derailed the process of getting sender validation in email with their demand for licensing parts of Sender-ID (in which the technology is really an evolution of technology, and not "innovative" at all.) Furthermore, MS is making it MORE difficult to patch machines with their "genuine advantage" program.

I'm not saying that MS is responsible for all spam. I'm not saying that MS is all bad. I'm saying that they do, however, have a hell of a big responsibility at this point for the magnitude of the problem given their historically poorly designed products and "standards unfriendly" behavior. While I am happy that MS is making these steps, they are baby steps.

MS is not alone in needing to take steps. ISP's also need to wake the hell up and help identify, and disable spambots on their networks, and take other proactive measures. Frankly, ISP's are in a better position to deal with this problem than MS, and VERY VERY few ISP's are doing ANYTHING about it. Charter, RoadRunner, Comcast, Verizon, SBC, BellSouth, and most all you other big ISP's so TOTALLY suck when it comes to spam. Many of you have agressive inbound spam policies yet do nothing to stem the tide of outgoing garbage...

OK, now I get to sit back and watch the MS fanboys start foaming at the mouth for suggesting that MS has any responsibility for the magnitude of the problem.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey it's so generous of SuSE to give this much money away and not keep it for themselves! They rock! If only more people were like SuSE!!

What? It's from Microsoft?

Ah those fuckers will do anything for free publicity!

Re:Not enough

[shawn(at)fsu]

Okay so giving 0 dollars would obviously not help fight spam or improve IT skills, that's a given, now your saying that 5 million wont either. So if there is no change or benefit from 5 million instead of 0 by your reasoning you could say that no amount of money will ever make a change?
Good God people a company of it's own free will gives 5 million to different groups and you still moan about how crappy it is. Do they get PR out of it yeah probably, so does any Tom Dick and Harry that makes a donation to a school and has a building named after them. Would you rather they horde all their money and not give it out? Tell me what would you have them do? At least it must be simple living in your world where everything is so black and white. Company X is bad everything they do is bad, company Y is good everything they do is good. You know it's not that simple there are shades of gray.
Also your point is flawed by saying that the money they are giving will not help since it's only a fraction of their R&D. Care to explain how that works? I mean if a company that spends 10 million of R&D gives 5 million for charity how would that 5 million be any different than the 5 million that MS gave?

Re:Not enough

[Felinoid]

The grandparents poor choice of title...
Sounds like he is saying Bill Gates should give more money.
In reality what Bill Gates should give isn't money at all. However I've known for quite some time Mr Gates was a dedicated spam hunter (it's the only time I've ever agreed with him).
He could have stuffed that money in his pocket but he didn't and thats nice of him. He is getting rid of the net scum with cash.

But it dose look like he is buying good will.
However he can't actually buy good will. He has to earn it.
The laundry list is long and we /.ers know it by heart so I'm done ...

Re:Not enough

[Albino Wolfman]

I don't think we should just dismiss it, though. This may be a symbolic gesture and yes, one that helps the Q Factor of Microsoft. Let's be fair, though.

You could say that any charitable donation that isn't made anonymously in some way serves an agenda of the donator. Since Microsoft is a public company, it can't really make anonymous donations for accounting reasons.

Are we saying that when a large company donates to charity, it should only donate in very grand amounts? Wouldn't this serve to discourage companies from making charitable donations?

Re:Not enough

[NatasRevol]

He didn't create it, but his company/OS made it really easy to send it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_computer

Re:Not enough

[Albino Wolfman]

LOL! Well said!

I don't think everyone on Slashdot feels that way, but there is a strong lobby!

:-)

Re:Not enough

[shawn(at)fsu]

Were not talking about the business world though are we, as that is where the money is coming from were talking about law enforcement agencies as that is where the money is going. The private sector will often have more money that the public sector, thats just how it works. I'm sure they wont be complaining about how little this ammount is. You have people at different LEA getting excited when they get a 10,000 grant, in smaller towns it makes the paper etc. But this is /. where MS is always eveil no if's and's or butt's so I'm sure this post will fall on deaf ears.

Re:Not enough

[AviLazar]

No, his company didn't make anything. Bad hackers exploited the program(s). The fault resides SOLELY with those hackers. Windows is spending millions of dollars trying to prevent these holes, fix these holes, and stop those who are exploiting them. Sometimes its not even holes. It is not MS's fault when someone downloads a virus from a website. That is 100% user fault.

People need to stop pointing the finger at MS and start pointing the finger at the malicious hackers, and then themselves.

Bill Gates owes the planet nothing. Any charities they perform they are not obligated to. Their only obligations are to their share holders, employees, government taxes, and to those who are under warranty.

Re:Not enough

[lotrtrotk]

I know, I was expanding the argument. If charity can be used, so can anything else.

So you expanded the argument into something that goldspider didn't even say, and then you ripped it apart. I guess your argument doesn't really apply then, does it? Obviously, influencing somebody to give charity cannot be compared to at the same level as real slavery. I am sure that goldspider would not deny this. But I think the basic idea he was trying to get accross is the same. Both involve acts that someone un-willingly does because they are pressured (or worse) to do it.

I think he basically just chose a poor word to describe this, and now it's been read into far too deeply.

Re:Not enough

[utuk99]

Charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is just a nice word for slavery.
I thought it was called taxes.

Re:Not enough

[Skye16]

Perhaps the argument doesn't apply, perhaps it does. I generalized even more than goldspider did. MAYBE it's only "slavery" when charity is coerced. The others are completely fine. But if so, my question is "why"? Why is charity the only act that, with coercion, becomes slavery? Why not any act that is coerced becoming slavery?

I would tend to agree, he merely chose a poor word. Someone else picked a better one - extortion. Taxation may also suffice (if properly qualified). But that's the whole point of my argument. If being coerced into doing charitable deeds makes one a slave, then so does being coerced into doing _anything_, even if it's as mundane as "taking out the garbage".

Then again, even as extortion, it's still a question of degree. Though, I would say, the boundaries on extortion are much closer together than such open ended boundaries on the aboved stated 'definition' of slavery.

Re:Not enough

[NatasRevol]

It is 100% BillG/MS's fault that a user CAN download a virus from a website, and get infected from it. Yes, the hackers must assume some responsibility. But MS also holds a huge responsiblilty because they let these things happen so easily for so long. Go download a script kiddie kit and see how easy it is to write one. It's utterly pathetic.

There are several OSes out there that this can't happen.

Windows problems are so bad that instead of being able to fix the problem, they've tried to fix the symptom and MS bought an antivirus company! That's utterly retarded, and there's no excuse for them to NOT be able to fix the problem instead of the symptom.

Re:Not enough

[gomoX]

Of course, and they deserve it, because they should have used the GPL and just giving away their money to those poor kids is like giving a man a fish instead of the fishing row.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you used some unwords in your post...... we must have a little chat...

BB

Re:Not enough

[AviLazar]

It is 100% BillG/MS's fault that a user CAN download a virus from a website,

Yes because with each copy of windows, you get an MS technicion who stands behind you to hit you over the head when you go to do something stupid.

There are several OSes out there that this can't happen.

What OS has zero spyware/virus/worms/etc targetting it?

Re:Not enough

[NatasRevol]

With each copy of Windows you get dozens of holes that not everyone knows exist or how to fix them if they did exist. See yesterday's cricital updates...

What OS has zero spyware/virus/worms/etc targetting it?
See my sig.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and oracle gives, how much? FOSS gives how much? Sun gave how much?

Just because MS have an obscene amount of money doesn't mean that 5mill have become any less to the NYPD than if it had come from another source. The point is that MS probably decided to give money away to make sure little whinos wouldn't complain about MS making money off of the spammers.

Seriously if MS is so stupid and so evil and all that and everything they do makes money, what do you think is stopping the "good guys" from making money. The FOSS movements, the other linux based junks people have been duped into buying and most of all the company every little nerd loved at one time: Sun.

Re:Not enough

[twiddlingbits]

Several things you are forgetting. 1) The spammmer has declated Bankruptcy. MS is now juat another creditor. Legal judgements are right below labor in what has to be paid off with any funds the spammer has. My guess is the mega-bucks he paid himself (if he was smart he incorporated and MS gets the company money) are safe. 2)Won't the "agencies" MS gives the money to turn around and buy MS products? After all if they want to find and track spammers they next the right software . This is great publicity for MS, the couldn't buy the ads for $5M to get this much positive exposure! 3) $5M won't go far at the state level, with the overhead they have, the bloated staffing level and the salaries it might last a 2 years. And I doubt they would track down, arrest and prosecute anyone. 4) It's a nice tax break for MS, it allows them to write off the Gain from the settlement (if and when they get it) saving 36% in Corporate Taxes. 5) The execs in Redmond are not idiots, they are not giving this away with no expectations of a payback in some form or another. Corporations are NOT like individuals who give out of emotion, religious beliefs, affiliations, etc.

Re:Not enough

[lee1026]

actually, by burning those 1000 dollar bills he is helping the poor - by making everyone else's money worth more then it would be otherwise.

Re:Not enough

[keraneuology]

The private sector will often have more money that the public sector

Demonstrably untrue. Consider the Gravina Island bridge project - $250,000,000 to build a bridge from a city of 8,000 to an island with a population pegged at 50 or smaller. Nobody in the private sector has this much money to bury in an Alaskan swamp, yet the public sector - which is unfettered by the bounds of accountability or revenue generator - will drop this wad of cash like a mangy cat sheds it fur.

PR fluff and posturing and empty promises are all nice and good but the icy cold reality of the matter is that without an incentive to stop spam spam will not stop. Microsoft has no incentive to actually end spam, only an incentive to a) look like they give a rat's spleen or b) fight spam if doing so will generate revenue.

For the time being the government is much more interested in handing out 17 years jail term for somebody who pointed a camcorder at a $10 movie or a 1 year jail term for a WorldCom Exec who scammed hundreds of millions of dollars than than even smacking the hand of a person who sends out obscene and sexually explicit photos to 10 year olds or provide bulletproof hosting services for people who use spam to introduce keylogging applications to home computers then drain somebody's life savings.

If and only if sufficient incentive is dangled in front of LEAs will the problems be addressed. Remember, salting only 99.9% of your driveway will cost you your house in the civil suit. Retaining hundreds of millions of records against Visa's policies then allowing those records to fall into the wrong hands will at most get Visa to issue a press release stating that they won't be using your services for awhile (and the cynical might point out that there is nothing preventing Visa from simply claiming to make the association change while maintaining the status quo).

Re:Not enough

[AviLazar]

What are you talking about? OS X does have viruses, trojans, etc. Why do you think MAC takes such strides to protect itself. OS X also suffers from malware/spyware. Hell just read some of the news posts on Here

As for Unix/Linux - here is some articles you can check out Here

Maybe you should modify your sig?

Re:Not enough

[Epistax]

True charity is anonymous. Everything else is, to at least a minor extent, ego. That's not to say it's wrong to do, of course. Better give the millions to charity than to media companies, although your actions will have smiliar results.

Re:Not enough

[milkman_matt]

$6 million is a hell of a lot of money irrespective of who gives it and their own monetary situation. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

No shit, you well never do right by the MS haters on this site. MS could give 25b away and people would still be screaming "Yeah yeah charity my ass, they still have 25b left!". Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should be offended that, since MS is worth so much, and they probably misplace more than 10 grand without blinking an eye, that they're not paying off my truck.

Bet you one thing though, bet you that if a grand or so of this $6m went directly to the people on here complaining they wouldn't be complaining anymore, and they wouldn't be arguing that "This won't make a dent in the fight against spam." or "This money isn't going to help educate anybody!" anymore..

Re:Not enough

[shawn(at)fsu]

"Often"

I said often. And I wasn't refering to pork barrel products either. I'm talking about local polcie departments and agencies that aren't getting money for teh war on drugs.

Re:Not enough

[Arker]

I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble... read PR.

Oh come on.

Now granted, this is MicroSoft we're talking about, an entity that is evil to the core.

But by that definition, there is no charity, ever. It's ridiculous. People do things for reasons, corporations do things for reasons too. Just because they have a motive doesn't make it any less charity.

Re:Not enough

[NatasRevol]

Show me a link to an actual virus, trojan, worm, malware.

Those links are for security issues that have NEVER been actually exploited.

As for the MP3Virus.gen, it was a script that required admin access. This is a 'security hole' on every OS ever created.

And it's not MAC, it's Mac. And the company is called Apple. Know what you're talking about before you reply.

Re:Not enough

[tgrigsby]

Not *nearly* enough when you consider that these agencies will likely *not* get a check, but rather computers and software valued at millions. Anytime Microsoft pays out, it usually manages to swing a way to make that payment in the form of copies of its software. In this case, it's taking the millions from the settlement and using it subsidize Windows purchases for schools and law enforcement agencies.

Re:Not enough

[walt-sjc]

Then it's even LESS money. You are totally uninformed if you think that government does things less expensivly than the private sector. EVERYTHING costs more if the government does it. You don't just need an investigator, you also need the entire bureaucracy that goes along with him.

We are not talking about a problem that affects a small town where $10K makes a difference. We are talking about a world-wide problem that is a MULTI billion dollar problem.

BTW, (and this is also for the MS fanboy moderators that modded me a troll) I did NOT say that MS was "evil." I said that they had a RESPONSIBILTY that they need to own up to.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving the paltry five million away buys a lot of good will from New York state.

Damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I suppose you would cry foul if they spent it on a huge company party instead...Tyco style. When they really should give it to charity cause its such a small amount...

Re:Not enough

[AviLazar]

I will call it MAC and if you don't like it tough shit. I will use Apple and MAC interchangeably, and if you still don't like it, refer to my above statement. Other then that, you should really stop trying to introduce Red Herring's into our debate.

I will not provide a link to an actual virus, trojan worm or malware. That does not help the situation - plus it puts me at risk. Also, the fact that OS X is not as popular (by FAR) as Windows means there are fewer people trying to target OS X.

Some OS X viruses/worms/etc
Renepo worm (aka Opener)
Esperanto
Mac.Simpsons


Interesting, I have been running windows sun Win95 and have never run into a virus on my computer. I have gotten some spyware, but no viruses or trojans. Mind you I surf pr0n with the best of them. I d/l from "shady" websites but nothing has yet to infect my computer.

Re:Not enough

[keraneuology]

I'm talking about local polcie departments and agencies that aren't getting money for teh war on drugs.

They have enough money to park an officer in chatrooms for hours on end pretending to be a 16 1/2 year old girl but don't have enough money to investigate the theft of a $15,000 driveway (true story - the bad guys dug up the brick pavers that constituted the driveway one by one and hauled them off). It is a question of priorities: give the local LEAs a billion dollars and unless there is specific incentive to target these things they will always have something more important. "We really need mahogany paneling for the offices because morale is low" or "what's the matter, don't you think we should be targeting chatroom predators? This money is going for more sting operations and if you oppose this then you must be a pedophile."

The war on drugs has been funded to the gills for an entire generation now and the most that has come out of it is a plan to require a trip to the doctor to get an Rx for Nyquil (this is finally going to stop the meth trade! We really mean it this time!)

Stopping the drug trade (like spam and telemarketing) is logistically easy but politically difficult. Want to stop the traffic of Heroin? Spray the poppy crops in Afghanistan with Roundup. But the local warlords would stop lending support to the CIA so you can't do that. Want to stop spam and telemarketing? Levy effective fines and make them stick. But the DMA would fund your opponent in the next election so you can't do that.

Your assertion that the private sector ("often") has more money than the public sector is entirely untrue - this is an allocation problem rather than a budgetary problem.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense! I'd praise them as the Company of the Century, if they will close up shop, put their source code in the public domain, and give all their money to starving street kids. I'm sure that more than half the posts would be praising them and questioning "why did it take you so long?" :-)

Re:Not enough

[Craig_P92669]

"and gave all their money to starving street kids"

No, but I would suspect Michael Jackson bought a controlling interest in MS.

Re:Not enough

[shawn(at)fsu]

I didn't say anything about the war on drugs being winable. I have a degree in Criminology, we talked about that at length. I was refering to the fact that if you not involved with the war on drugs opr now adays the war on terror, your not going to get as much money funneld to you.

Your right it is an allocation problem. They only have so much to allocate. They are not a money making machine like corprate America. MS gives them 5 billion to allocate to a certain section that I feel has been largly ignored. So why do you have issue with it?

For the record I think stopping pedophiles is a good expendature of money.

Re:Not enough

[NatasRevol]

Renopo is, again, a script that needs admin access to run. This principle would work on any OS.

Espranto and Mac.Simpsons were viruses for OS 9, from about 5 years ago.

Try checking your facts next time.

And MAC stands for Media Access Control. But you're probably a Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert and wouldn't understand that.

Interestingly, I bet you had virus protection on the entire time. Because you had to. Thanks for proving my point!

Re:Not enough

[NetRAVEN5000]

They're giving it out to better their public reputation - same reason they're suing the spammer. If they truly wanted to stop spam or pay for people to learn computer skills, they wouldn't have needed to win a lawsuit to do it. The comment at the end ("with the rest being flagged to pay Microsoft's legal costs") kinda proves it - like MS can't afford to pay its lawyers. . . yeah, right. . .

Re:Not enough

[keraneuology]

MS gives them 5 billion to allocate to a certain section that I feel has been largly ignored. So why do you have issue with it?

Five billion ($5,000,000,000) or five million (remove the last three zeros)?

I don't have issue with MS doing whatever they want with their private funds. They should spend their own, private money on anything they want. But generous gifts usually end up in a zero net increase in expenditures on the targeted application as gifts tend to cause existing funds to be diverted or are simply redirected to higher priorities. My point is that until the attitudes and priorities change the gifts are basically meaningless and won't result in much if anything.

And for the record, if there was even a single successful prosecution of parents who failed to monitor their children's activities allowing them to sex up complete strangers 4 hours a night for months then much of the problem would evaporate. If parents turn their back for 30 seconds and a naked four year old chases a kitten into the front yard DPS is all over them. If parents spend $2,500 on a state of the art computer complete with webcam, $250 on wireless gear, buy and install a webcam, shell out $75/month for always-on broadband access, then turn their back for 2,000 hours a year as the computer is specifically placed in an area where the parents' eyes can't see the screen without giving the kid 30 seconds of warning to close various windows suddenly the argument is that "parents can't be expected to keep track of their kids all the time".

Re:Not enough

[AviLazar]

And MAC stands for Media Access Control

Actually MAC stands for a few things:
Military Airlift Command
maximum allowable concentration
a waterproof raincoat made of rubberized fabric
Got all those nifty things from Dictionary.com, oh and look it includes MAC (yes in capitals) and says Macintosh...darn
You would lose that bet...I didn't invest in a virus protection or firewall until windows 98. The reason I knew I didn't have a virus on windows 95, is because I did the upgrade from 95 to 98 (those upgrade disks) and then I scanned.
Espranto and Mac.Simpsons affect OS X (according to f-secure.com and a couple of other websites.

I don't care of Renopo effects other OS's, the fact is MAC does have viruses affecting it. And it will have more as more hackers target it - this not even you can deny.

As for MCSE - yes that was a wonderful birthday present...that I gave to my Systems Engineer.

Re:Not enough

[Guspaz]

I'd rather have seen them earmark the money for a spam-fighting foundation.

Think about it, create a mostly financially independant child company or foundation, or even division, and give them the $7 million. That entity then uses the $7 million to sue other spammers. It then gets more money from other spammers, and uses that to fight additional spammers.

This way, Microsoft could have a spam-fighting operation going costing them nothing, since it would make it's own money to continue operating. They'd also get a lot of good press about it.

Also there is something poetic about using spammers' money to sue other spammers.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad hackers exploited the program(s). The fault resides SOLELY with those hackers. Windows is spending millions of dollars trying to prevent these holes, fix these holes, and stop those who are exploiting them.

No, if Microsoft writes garbage (which they do), then THEY are responsible. Whatever Microsoft is spending on "security", it isn't enough. Computers are pretty simple from a network point of view. They accept a finite series of bytes, and return a finite series of bytes. If Microsoft can't write a program that has predictable behavior, then maybe they should start removing features or spending more money on better programmers.

People like you need to stop making excuses for Microsoft and other software vendors INCLUDING open source.

There's no excuse for the half-finished code Microsoft ships. I really wouldn't care, I don't use Microsoft products, but I still have to waste hours dealing with OTHER people's crap flowing on my network. What a waste.

Yeah, users make stupid mistakes, I'll give you that. But that still doesn't excuse Microsoft. Why is it even possible to execute code from the network in the first place?

Re:Not enough

[NatasRevol]

Let me get this straight.

You used dictionary.com to find out a technical definition of an acronym and came up short? Wow, apparently you couldn't get the MCSE either.

Esperanto & Mac.Simpsons are not OS X viruses, per f-secure:
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/esperant.shtml
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/macsimps.shtml
So you're wrong again there. Maybe if you could provide an actual link. You might need directions.

And Renopo was a shell script, not a virus, that was fixed with a security update from 2004:
http://www.lindqvist.com/index.php?ID=1735
And, no, there are still no viruses for OS X. But good luck trying!

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I will call it MAC and if you don't like it tough shit. I will use Apple and MAC interchangeably, and if you still don't like it, refer to my above statement.

Right on! Don't let anyone take away your right to be ignorant!

Re:Not enough

[Knuckles]

How's this a troll? It's an entirely reasonable post, whether you agree or not. Sheesh, at one point we need to think what to do about MS astroturf mods

Re:Not enough

[shark72]

" I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble... read PR."

It's safe to say that most charitable donations are not 100% noble.

Those of you whose income have made the standard dection a tiny dot in your rear view mirror know exactly what I'm talking about. Those of you who have no incentive to donate to charity may continue to question the motives of those of us who do.

"Also, 5mn is a miniscule microscopic portion of the amount MS spends in R&D anyways, so it's doubtful this money is gonna help fight crime or spam. Or improve the IT skills of the average New Yorker."

$5MM is $5MM. Microsoft's annual R&D expenditure has absolutely no bearing on how effectively New York will spend the money.

Re:Not enough

[Knuckles]

Afghanistan

Call me a crackpot, but I always had this suspicion that the US didn't mind that driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan and creating a new government made up of warlords would increase the Afghan poppy harvest that suffered a lot under the Taliban, and thus would create new grounds for the so-called war on drugs, which mostly is a war against parts of the US citizenship.

I made the prediction (unfortunately drunk in a bar and not verifiable now) that within 5 years after the invasion, Afghanistan would be the worlds largest poppy producer, and it seems I was right.

Interesting, googling for "war" AND "Afghanistan" shows that I'm not the only one http://www.google.com/search?q=war+Afghanistan

Re:Not enough

[Knuckles]

Why is everyone talking about charity? This is not charity AT ALL. This is a business they are in as the defining force, and they have greatly contributed to the fact that things like spambot networks exist in the first place. It's not as if they gave those $7m to a cancer fund or anything.

If a doctor demonstrably makes has a history of grave mistakes, his later giving of a very small percentage of his disposable income to a fund for victims of medical malpractice hardly constitues charity.

Re:Not enough

[bit01]

Yep, taking $40,000,000,000 per year in monopoly rent with one hand and giving $6,000,000 (0.015%) with the other hand just makes me go so warm and fuzzy inside. They are such a generous company!

---

I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah 5 mill is nothing when you have billions. Like the foreign aid of the US. Lowest in terms of the percentage of its GDP amongst ALL industrial countries. Read it again. In terms of % of GDP, the United States foreign aid is the LOWEST amongst ALL industrial countries.

Re:Not enough

[It'sYerMam]

While the same amount given by someone who was not after personal gain would have the same effect, the actual merits are different. Microsoft can be despised for this because they are doing it as a PR effort - if they wanted to actually help, they would take a billion or so and use that. Make no mistake, this will surely help, but it is designed to help Microsoft primarily.

Whether or not you take issue with this last part is a matter of opinion, straight and simple, but it is a valid point to take issue on.

Re:Not enough

[It'sYerMam]

You've made some incorrect logic leaps, there. Noone is saying that 5M will do nothing because it's a small proportion of their R&D - they're saying it will do little because it is not enough to do a lot. This action can validly be seen as a bad thing if you believe that charity for the purpose of PR is a bad thing ethically. If Microsoft wanted to help, they have billions with which to do so. It seems quite obvious that this is designed to help them.

Re:Dupe of the week

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't notice the subtle difference in this story then?

Re:Dupe of the week

[Bluey]

At least this time they had the decency to include a link to the previous slashdot posting, which contains a link to the previous article, which contains the information in today's posting.

Yanno, cause otherwise it could have been confusing.

Re:Dupe of the week

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite a dupe but it does have more of a followup.
Microsoft putting money in New York State to educate the youths.

Not So Cool!

[BackOrder]

It's not explicity written in the article that the money will go against spammers. Instead, it is said about crime. We can only suppose computer crimes. It's much larger than spamming and one might believe it's just a PR stunt where they will simply use 5$ million dollars to fight against people who "illegaly" obtain Windows Vista, maybe?

Re:Not So Cool!

[dustmite]

How is the parent flamebait? It's a perfectly valid point.

Re:Not So Cool!

[cosinezero]

Aren't they completely in the right to try to stop piracy of their intellectual property? If you don't like windows, use something else... but stealing software is still stealing.

Re:Dupe of the week

[daniil]

Sir, I dub thee 'The Boy that Cried "Dupe!"

Re:Dupe of the week

[Aim Here]

It's not a dupe, it's a followup. If you'd Read The Fucking Blurb, you'd see a link to the very same article (different URL though, admittedly).

Re:Dupe of the week

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee this is not a dupe. I would certainly remember seeing MS doing something good :-)

Excuse me for being cynical !!

[Gopal.V]

a cool $5 mil to helping law enforcement agencies address computer-related crimes.

Crimes like piracy of Windows ?. Patent policing ?. More SCO like allegations on newer projects that imitate or duplicate Microsoft products ?.

Another $1 million will go to New York State to "expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults"

Train them to use Outlook, Word and Excel or do they mean .NET,C# and Monad ?. Sort of catch them young approach ?.

I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity - it's often just building a new market for themselves, locking in an expanding market or blatant tax evasionary steps . They sent 250 XP Cds to a school and mark the cost as donations. I went on TV to help FSF guys call foul on that in Kerala - apparently it seems to have made some impact there (they teach about using OpenOffice and FireFox now).

Essentially the money is in Microsoft's pockets and they are trying for Maximum ROI, rather than paying it out as dividends to their shareholders right now.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[A beautiful mind]

I guess the saying goes like: "Beware Greeks even though are bearing gifts"

MS does not donate, they invest: be it PR or else.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[BlackCobra43]

You ARE aware 5 million, distributed amongst the shareholders, would result in a fraction of a cent per share?

10.68 billion shares spreading 5 million....I doubt the shareholders would lose much sleep over it. This is essentially free money for MS that they decided to give for some PR.

Basically I agree with you but disagree that possible dividends should even be invoked.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[jaiyen]

Sounds like Microsoft really can't win whatever they do.

Crimes like piracy of Windows ?. Patent policing ?. More SCO like allegations on newer projects that imitate or duplicate Microsoft products ?.

That's pretty baseless speculation, it could just as easily be stopping financial fraud or breaking online paedophile rings. I doubt the law enforcement agencies are going to be complaining about getting this extra money from Microsoft, I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being.

I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity - it's often just building a new market for themselves, locking in an expanding market or blatant tax evasionary steps . They sent 250 XP Cds to a school and mark the cost as donations.

Dubious tax policies aside, I agree that giving away the CD's is more marketing than charity but is it really that bad a thing? It's not being forced upon them and is just an extra choice, surely that's a good thing?

Would you apply the same criticism if it was guys from Mozilla Corp coming around giving away Firefox and teaching XUL?

I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity... they are trying for Maximum ROI

So I suppose Bill Gates putting billions of his own $$$ into AIDS research in the developing world is just looking for ROI too?

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[DickBreath]

Sounds like Microsoft really can't win whatever they do.

They could win if they do the right thing, and not just as a PR stunt. Look at big evil IBM lately.


So I suppose Bill Gates putting billions of his own $$$ into AIDS research in the developing world is just looking for ROI too?

I'm sure he genuinely feels some joy in giving to a good cause. Should we let this distract us from Bill Gates' bad behavior? Does that now make everything okay?


Read the book... Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse of Power.

One of the things that IBM's forerunner learned in WW-I was that if you gave money to a good cause, the PR really does change people's opinion of your bad behavior.


Basically, Microsoft behaves very badly. Giving $5 Million dollars for the vague purpose of "fight crime", which people rightfully point out could be self-serving, does not and should not let Microsoft off the hook for their abuses.

Somebody needs to let the mafia in on the secret: giving to charity, in a very public way, excuses all of your bad behavior.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[DecoDragon]

MS does not donate, they invest: be it PR or else.

Which is what almost every company does, and lots of individuals do as well. Make a big donation, get your name out there. It's a transaction. It's a transaction for all of us who donate, we at least get the warm fuzzies out of it, or we wouldn't bother.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[pomo monster]

"They could win if they do the right thing, and not just as a PR stunt."

Well for fuck's sake, what would "the right thing" be? Clothing and shelter for homeless children? No, because they're obviously just ensuring a future market for themselves. Feeding starving Africans? Nothing but a PR move. Toppling Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and installing a democratic government? Clearly on a power trip.

The other poster had it right. Microsoft can't win in your eyes. So why should they even try to do anything positive if people like you are just going to attack them with paranoid cynicism and hate?

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[NetRAVEN5000]

"Sort of catch them young approach ?."

Kinda - they're also teaching grown ups. Still, though - this is what I call the "drug dealer" approach - give it to them free and get them hooked on it. Teach them to use YOUR products for free, give them YOUR products for free and that's what they'll learn and use. I can assure you that MS won't teach them about Firefox, Linux, or AIM - instead, they'll teach them IE, WinXP, and MSN Messenger..

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[Chalex]

So I suppose Bill Gates putting billions of his own $$$ into AIDS research in the developing world is just looking for ROI too?

Of course! Just think of all the extra Windows users that will grow up to purchase MS software!

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[Anonymous Coward]

So I suppose Bill Gates putting billions of his own $$$ into AIDS research in the developing world is just looking for ROI too?
yes, it means more MS users live....
i'm joking.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Would you apply the same criticism if it was guys from Mozilla Corp coming around giving away Firefox and teaching XUL?

Um, the men and women that work at mozilla already do this via their website. no need for them to come around....

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Paranoid cynicism? Maybe because people have a right to be wary of Microsoft. Most legit companies won't try and patent the double click of a mouse they didn't even create. Likewise, most people don't run around calling the competition a "cancer" or "Communism." And then when they are beat, they try and weasle around this with their Shared Source bullshit. Personally, I'm sick of this shit, Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust once already, and nothing happened. When will it end?

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[batkiwi]

Two words for you:

Gates Foundation.

Look it up. It will change your views on Gates as a person (despite your views of Gates as a businessman).

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[bit01]

Well for fuck's sake, what would "the right thing" be?

Licenses that aren't manipulative bullshit. Pricing that aren't monopoly rents but actually reflect the true cost of producing the product. Marketing that's honest, rather than being manipulative and deceptive. Products that aren't designed to manipulate the market and lock out even potential competition. Opening all protocols for interoperability. Not manipulating the law with money and influence. Not being in denial about honest criticism. Not trying to lock out even potential competition with DRM and patents. Not pretending that money and influence equals virtue and that greed is good. Need I go on?

Microsoft can't win in your eyes.

They have $40,000,000,000+ per year of catching up to do. Until they give in balance to what they are taking they will continue to be criticised. They are a parasite company, and until they stop being parasites, emotionally manipulative arguments like yours are baseless.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Excuse me for being cynical !!

[Hosiah]

Crimes like piracy of Windows ?. Patent policing ?. More SCO like allegations

Gee, you speak with some intelligence and make a lot of common sense. You cite real world events to prove your point and relay on a firm arguement to make your case instead of childish name-calling. How did you find your way to Slashdot? Are you lost?

DMCA and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they will dedicate all those funds to making criminals out of those who they deem to be outlaws by violating IP, DMCA and other draconian statutes that they've pushed through congress. Gee, what stand up guys they are.

Computer related crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

are most likely to be, in MS's eyes, the ones that the BSA fight. Don't expect this money to fight more spam.

Re:Computer-relasted skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Youths...(sic)

Why, what should it be?

And you're on shaky ground criticizing, "relasted"-man.

"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[ReformedExCon]

First, I'd rather Microsoft come out on top than spammers.

But I am interested and baffled by the concept of "punitive damages" and how they are paid to the litigating party rather than to the general tax revenue base. If a company or person is to be punished for doing something wrong, shouldn't the government be the one to mete out that punishment? Why should a private citizen or company be allowed to reap the windfall of punitive damages? I think the justice system turns the court into a lottery by allowing such huge awards to be paid to offended parties.

In a sense, Microsoft is doing what I think ought to be done with punitive damages. That is, 1) to pay the winner's court expenses, and 2) to have the government receive the punishment money. Not that I don't think that Microsoft isn't doing this out of self-serving long term planning, but I do agree with the action (perhaps not their guiding principle).

I would like to see more spammers put out of business. However, as long as there are people willing to buy their products, spammers will be out there trying to bilk them.

Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[hylander_sb]

The money goes to the plaintiff because it's a civil case, not a criminal case. Microsoft is the plaintiff, not society as a whole. Sometimes the government will bring civil cases against others, a la the tobacco cases, and then the money goes to the 'tax revenue base'.

Personally, I think it's a scam that the government can use the civil court system to extort money from parties it doesn't have enough evidence against to try on a criminal basis. The standards of evidence are sooo much loser in a civil case.

Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[ScentCone]

Not that I don't think that Microsoft isn't doing this out of self-serving long term planning, but I do agree with the action (perhaps not their guiding principle).

What's wrong with the guiding principle of a company acting in its own interest? MS will have a better future if people are happier when sitting down in front of their products and not getting killed with spam. MS will have lower costs if their own Hotmail, MSN, and other systems aren't choking on spam. If every company, and every person, acted rationally in their own interests, we'd be way, way ahead of the game. And no, I don't think that the spammers are acting rationally in their own interests - they're parasites that are trying to make a buck off of a set of (technical, cultural) vulnerabilities, and it's ultimately a very destructive behavior.

Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[Dachannien]

I agree with you on multiple counts. First off, while Microsoft and spammers are both evil, at least you have the choice not to be subjected to Microsoft products. Spam is all about eliminating the ability to choose whether you receive their e-mail or not.

And second, I agree that punitive damages shouldn't go into the hands of the plaintiff, but should be used to benefit society as a whole. As long as actual damages to the plaintiff are covered, anything above that is just an undeserved windfall. The point of punitive damages is punishment of the offender. While there's probably no completely equitable way to assign those funds (other than dividing them up equally among the population of a jurisdiction), handing the money to the government is more fair to society than giving it to a person or company that has already recouped their losses.

Assigning punitive damages to the government would also help reduce the massive drain on the economy caused by litigation, by removing a large part of the incentive for plaintiffs (and, more importantly, their lawyers) to sue. It'd be a definite boon for anybody who pays money into the health care industry.

Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[usurper_ii]

On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where the government gets money and it shouldn't. For instance, some guy is speeding and hits my car. Police give him several tickets for failing to obey speed, control car, wear seatbelt, etc. Who does the guy pay his tickets to? The State. Now my car was damaged, but the State figured out a way to make money out of it. How does that work out?

Some guy breaks into a house and gets caught. He does some time, for which the tax payers pay his room and board, and then he gets out on probation. Who does this guy have to pay every month as part of his probation? Not the person whose house he broke into, but...the State.

In Texas, they now have a law that if you get a DWI, you have to pay 1000.00 (1st offense, it's 1000.00 a year for X amount of years for 2nd offenses) to the state of Texas, ON TOP of your fines to the city/county/court etc., you get caught in.

How exactly did that work out? Most probably, "We need money for some program, lets figure out a way to screw someone out of 1000.00 and see if we can get away with it."

I say, there is a big difference between protecting the public, and using them as a source of revenue. Especially when the public already pays taxes that is supposed to pay for this stuff. But it looks like they are getting it from all sides, and it never seems to be enough.

Usurper_ii

Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[HuguesT]

On the other hand, if people didn't get fined, then some revenue would get lost and the State, who has legitimate expenses of its own (such as pay troopers, maintain roads, etc) would have to raise the money somehow, i.e. by raising taxes.

The point of the fine system is to help the State meet its expenses by making people who abuse the system (and get caught) pay more than those who don't.

Now is that insane or perfectly legitimate? Can you propose a better system?

I suspect that you'd rather that the perpetrators pay their fines to the victims (when there are any) without the State taking its cut. That sounds fair until you realize that some perps won't pay. They may be insolvent, they may run away, they may be dead (in the accident), all sorts of reasons. Some perps might even want to take revenge on the victim for forcing them to part with their hard-earned cash. Also the State would probably not be very motivated to force people to pay since they would not be getting their piece of the action.

The outcome would be that some victims would get compensated and some wouldn't. It wouldn't be fair. Also it would probably be massively more complicated and inefficient. The fine system is simple, efficient and well enforced.

That's why we have the insurance system and social security to compensate victims instead.

Feel free to come up with a better system, then get elected. After all you live in a democracy.

Best of luck.

$1 mil for lawyer?

[cloudmaster]

This appeared to be a straightforward case, but somehow I can still see the lawyer, holding his pinkie to his mouth and saying "Sure, I can help you prosecute this spammer. For one million dollars!"

Re:$1 mil for lawyer?

[Felinoid]

It's a Microsoft Lawyer.
I'm supprised he got away with ONLY one million.

Re:$1 mil for lawyer?

[cloudmaster]

Who's to say that he's not the one who'll be "fighting crime" with some/all of the millions donated to that cause? :)

Re:Dupe of the week

[smooth wombat]

I'm replying to my own posting (yeah, bad form be damned) so that I can quote the following from the original article:

Smith said that Microsoft will reinvest all of the money, after legal expenses, including $5 million that will go to increase Internet enforcement efforts and expand technical and investigative support to help law enforcers to address computer-related crimes.

So I ask the question: how is this a follow-up to the previous article when in fact the linked article is a day behind the original article and only restates things?

Not to mention that the article I had submitted had all of the information and more than the original article but was rejected.

So yes, it is a dupe.

Also, how can the first post about a submitted story be Redundant? Oh right, it's Thursday. That means an extra dose of crack to carry you over til Friday.

Re:Dupe of the week

[Veamon69]

But it's only good if it goes towards something with Linux...otherwise, theres a conspiracy!

Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

No surprise the the article and comments have taken the sarcastic and cynical route. You guys here seem to never be satisfied with anything Microsoft does.

The fact is Microsoft has no obligation to use this money to do anything. But they make a nice gesture, and nobody here can say one positive word? There's not one good outcome out of this?

The bitterness with Microsoft got old and stale 10 years ago. It's past time you people gave up this hatred and obsession with the 'Borg'.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO a nice gesture would be donating money to a few inner city schools to help maintain the school and buy a load of supplys (books, chalk, etc).

Although microsoft *have* done a sort-of-nice-but-self-serving gesture you should be able to see where the critisism's coming from. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for big business giving back to communities but as I said above, I'd much rather see a contribution that underfunded schools can use to improve education than teaching a load of people how to write an MSWord document.

Kudos to microsoft for donating the money but a slap on the wrist for trying to ensure some extra market share.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[DickBreath]

So giving $5 Million, even if it were to charity, should excuse all of Microsoft's bad behavior?

The sarcastic and cynical attitude are well deserved. Microsoft worked hard to earn it.

$5 Million? The vague, and possibly self-serving purpose of "fight crime" ?

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[BRonsk]

So giving $5 Million, even if it were to charity, should excuse all of Microsoft's bad behavior?
Who said that? Just curious... can't find that post you're referring to.

What is being said is that instead of shouting "a**holes" at them, for once, people could shout "thanks". This is all. On the next news, we'll be back to the "a**holes" shouting and all will be well.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

The bitterness with Microsoft got old and stale 10 years ago

Yes, and the M$odomy got old and stale a long time before that. So now due to your statute of limitations, we should just roll over and provide ourselves to bill gates and his 800 lb gorillatalia?

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[iamweezman]

IMHO I think you're wrong, as does microsoft. Bill Gates is one of the greatest philanthropists of our time, as he should be, and already has many charities in other areas. Microsoft also funds it's fair share of charitable foundations. I'm glad that they donated the money the way that they did so that phishers, scammers, spammers, and ID theives can get what's coming to them and I'll be a little safer online.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[swimmar132]

Who's saying anything about "excusing Microsoft's bad behavior"?

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that this is just your opinion as there are a few holes in your reasoning.
GP was talking about MS, _not_ bill gates which kind of makes your opening argument moot. Which charities does Microsoft itself support? Are they non-computer related? Are they a tax write off or is the company actually trying to do something a little more altruistic?

"I'm glad that they donated the money the way that they did so that phishers, scammers, spammers, and ID theives can get what's coming to them and I'll be a little safer online."

GP was talking about the "computer education" donation NOT the whole crime-fighting thing. Also, even if they get 100 spammers etc a month you're very unlikely to be safer online than you are right now.

Go re-read GP's comment. It's not really bashing MS or saying they're not doing anything good with the money, it's saying they could be doing even better things.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[nytmare]

Um, if Microsoft wants a good reputation, how about if they go out and earn one? Too bad they've got 15 years of pit to dig out of first.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[kaoshin]

Giving up the hatred of Microsoft as the parent poster requested, seems to imply that Microsoft's behavior would be excused. Mod me up, I'm captain obvious.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's past time you people gave up this hatred and obsession with the 'Borg'."

No it's not, you stinking Microsoft lackey!

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[deeny]

The bitterness with Microsoft got old and stale 10 years ago. It's past time you people gave up this hatred and obsession with the 'Borg'.

Maybe if they stopped misbehaving, it'd be easier to like them. I thought it was hilarious when they locked themselves in their building on Windows Refund Day. Oooh, scary!

You're right: MSFT has no obligation to use the money they received to do anything. However, if the gesture is self-serving, it's not truly charity. Which, as a friend pointed out many years ago, is the typical sort of MSFT gesture.

Frankly, I'd rather they spent the $ fixing the virus-propagating holes in Outlook and Word, y'know?

On a positive note (see?), this is a landmark in making spam ineffective from a cost perspective.

Re:Typical Slashdot Cynicism

[GrungyLotG]

If the handle the money properly, more power to them, however I do not want to see them donating $5 Million dollars on MS software at retail value, for that does not "fight crime" in any way. They would certainly gain a small amount of respect with me, if they don't take the easy route and lock crime-fighting organizations even further into Windows. At the moment, I'm playing "wait and see" to decide what to make of this, it could be another attempt for them to gain cheap publicity, or it may be a genuine act (Although with my current opinion of them, I feel that it leans more to the former).

Spitzer blew it first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Another $1 million will go to New York State to "expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults",

This is to cover for the embarrassing $50,000 that Eliot Spitzer (NYAG) settled for with Richter the first time around. I couldn't believe it when I read it the first time, that the AG was settling with Richter, one of the worst spammers in the world, for $50,000. That really showed that Spitzer was outmaneuvered by Richter or Richter was so good at covering his tracks the first time around, especially since MS was involved with the first investigation also.

Knowing a bit about NY politics/showboating since I'm from there, it seems that Spitzer must've insisted on doing things his way the first time around and ended up with the ridiculous $50,000 settlement. With MS taking the lead this time (MS is issuing the press releases on this one this time, Spitzer issued the press releases with the last settlement), it certainly appears MS did a much better job investigating and nailing Richter than Spitzer could ever dream of.

That million for New York is still going to be touted by Spitzer as a joint effort, and he'll be taking the credit for providing that money to schools (because of his investigation) during the gubernatorial election which everyone knows he's running for. $50,000 for arguably the king of spam. Pocket change to him. Richter must've wet himself laughing when his lawyer told him how much the settlement was for the first time around. Looks like 2nd time's the charm in this case.

Re:Spitzer blew it first time

[fistfullast33l]

The reason why he could only get $50,000 dollars was because he could only get $500 per each count of the law that Richter violated. Richter settled with Spitzer for 80 counts of violating GBL Section 350-d, the False Advertising Statute. That amounts to $40k plus an extra $10k for legal expenses of the state of New York.

I'd check your facts before you bash Spitzer. The legislature makes the laws and the Attorney General enforces them. The paltry $500 is the fault of the legislature in this case. You can check out this link on Spitzer's anti-spyware case for more info on the $500 per count. The law itself is printed here. The PDF of Richter's settlement is here.

Re:computer related crimes.

[tymbow]

To be honest about this... good.

We have probably all done it at some stage (piracy that is), and flame wars aside about ethics and monopolies, it's really time for people to pull their heads out of their collective butts and accept that it is stealing (and no I don't want an argument about definitions. I know nothing physical was taken, but under current law it's still stealing. Don't like it? Get the laws changed).

This doesn't mean I'm against pushing for change in the software industry, and moving to OpenSource (where it makes sense) but people have got to accept that it's not right, no matter what your politics, views or anything else are.

Re:Dupe of the week

[daniil]

You do realize that to get all this information, one would have had to read all of the original article? Tut, tut. Yeah, the article might be kind of dupish, but in my opinion, it's justified this time (even though the article is quite boring).

Hmm...

[MaestroSartori]

...just had a horrible thought of Bill Gates in a Batman costume. Old Batman that is - you know, spandex.

My eyes! :S

See!

[Anonymous Coward]

Spammers are good for community! Thanks to spammers, law enforcement and poor lawyers have been paid!

Re:Please....

[alnjmshntr]

Huh? This is not a fine and whether it is like a $5 tip to the rest of us is completely irrelevant. MS have won a major lawsuit against a spammer (which we should all be happy with) and are giving away the proceeds to other organisations. They could have just pocketed the money and left it at that. Is that what you're saying they should have done? Or are you just karma whoring on anti-ms cynicism?

Look up what Bill has given to Charities

[jasonhamilton]

He has given away an ungodly amount of money.

Re:Please....

[Himring]

I know it wasn't a fine. Call that an ... um, inverse analogy.

Look, I'm having a bad day. This damn thing stole my cursor....

Records

[Elitist_Phoenix]

I hope we will see paper records and outcomes from these promises.

Re:Somehow this will be "bad"

[LarsG]

New here? :)

In this part of the noosphere, guilty until proven innocent is the standard applied to MS. And given MS' past behaviour that shouldn't be a surprise.

Personally I can't see anything wrong with MS going after spammers, and would applaud it if they continue to do so.

Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

What he's saying is for MS brag about donating 7 mil is like your throwing a nickle in a Salvation Army pot and bragging about it.

I don't even call it charity, I call it cheap advertising. If it were truly charity you would have never heard about it.

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter what MS does, how they do it, or how much they do, you will be critical of them. 7 million may be a small amount compared to what they make, but they also spend quite a bit more on other charities. Not only that, but if they had done anything else with the 7 million from the lawsuit, ya'll would still be flaming MS.

Put down your MS flaming stick (which you've positioned up your collective asses) and realise MS did the only thing it could do with the money. You all kept making claims and flaming them for what they would 'likely' do with the money; you were wrong. And now that they didn't do what ya'll suspected they'd do, you're bitching because they did something good with it?

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[goldspider]

But of course Slashdotters would likely piss and moan about how greedy M$ was to pocket that $7 million.

Either way, no matter what they did with the money, Slashdot would find some way to disparage them for it.

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Marc2k]

No, not really. Given the size of Microsoft's legal team, I wouldn't have been suprised if they would have put the $7 Million right back into the company, nor would I have moaned on Slashdot about it. In fact, in this case I'd _rather_ see it going back in Microsoft's pockets--especially into their security division--because they could put it to good use developing quality software. But no, as someone pointed out, this 'charity' is a drop in the bucket, both for what Microsoft can afford to give, and for what would actually be needed to create an effective body for fighting computer-related crimes. On top of that, yeah, this is basically a well thought-out PR move meant to bolster Microsoft's philanthropy ratings, making them look like the good guy for much less than a cheap ad campaign.

Oh, and for the record, 'charity' when coerced is called modern government, where the governing body efficiently and effectively takes care of their own (that is to say, the constituents, not the politicians), while being an upstanding member of the global community. Oh, to live in such a place.

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Skye16]

I don't know that they did something "good" because they wanted to do good, but, as you said, they did the only thing they could with the money. I don't fault them for that. Doing good for society does not always have to be altruistic.

As you stated, Microsoft does many things for charity. The man we all love to hate, Bill, has done more for charity than all of us would ever be able to do, even if we took all of our gross income and combined it and just gave it away. Just because we dislike their business practices as a whole, just because we hate their rhetoric, just because we hate their products - it doesn't mean everything they do is wrong or evil. Let's applaud them for the good things they do - believe me, we'll have more than enough opportunities to flame them (more than likely this very day!)

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, and for the record, 'charity' when coerced is called modern government"

You'll hear no argument from me on that. But then, just because it is so, doesn't make it right.

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[freedom_india]

You are true. But this is slashdot and the crowd here HAS to bash M$FT to be called as an "in-thing" or cool or whatever.

Facts founder where M$FT is concerned.

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

M$FT

Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Re:Nobody's saying they HAD to do it

[Poltras]

Funny fact is, if every /.er would give a nickle to salvation army, then I guess they would have a good amount of money. It doesn't matter how much, charity is charity. You have something against that? Then keep your money for yourself.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't give that nickle you're talking about. When's the last time you gave something to someone?

Re:Please....

[Himring]

I protest my "redundant" score, cuz at the time I started the post no one had said it yet. I mean, this is like quantum physics and stuff. Hey! What I just said is at least interesting....

Someone mod up previous poster....

Re:computer related crimes.

[Hallow]

Oh, I don't mean that "stealing" windows is a good thing, just that microsoft will be spending the money on themselves most likely, but are spinning it as a "donation".

Bzzt, thanks for playing

[Svlad_Cjelli1972]

Under current law it is NOT stealing, although the powers that be would love it that you perceive it that way.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[ScentCone]

Under current law it is NOT stealing, although the powers that be would love it that you perceive it that way.

This is my all-time favorite distraction comment. You know, argue the semantics of "theft" vs. "infringement" and hope that nobody notices that your purpose is to make everyone comfortable with ripping off artists, no matter what you call it. It's wrong. Period.

I'd love to see the typical P2P-using teenager stand in front of their "favorite" artist and tell them that they love their work, and have all of it, but don't respect them enough to pay what the artist is asking for that work. But the people who rip off those artists know they're abusing the people they say they respect, and they'd never be able to look them in the eye.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[iminplaya]

...but don't respect them enough to pay what the artist is asking for that work.

Most people DO respect them enough to pay for the performance of that work. The copies are ads. They should pay us to distribute them. Just like I pay a radio or TV station to broadcast or newspaper to print my ad. Your concept implies that I should pay AOL for their CDs. The CD is an advertising medium, not an entertainment one. That the ads might be entertaining doesn't change a thing. There are still ads.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[ScentCone]

Your concept implies that I should pay AOL for their CDs

No, I'm saying that you should pay what the producer of the product, service, content, entertainment - anything - asks, or go elsewhere for what you want. AOL doesn't want to sell you their install software - they want to sell you their service, and that's why they ask you to pass the CD along to your friends. If the artist says, "I want you to enjoy my music, but the way I'm going to be able to spend my waking hours making it all day long, instead of flipping burgers, and earn a living doing so, is through airplay royalties and CD sales," then you have to either respect that artist's wishes, or admit that you don't respect the artist when you don't abide by their wishes, as it relates to what they spend their time creating.

Not sure how that could be more simple. That's like saying you respect me, but just not enough to keep you from stiffing me on the agreed payment after I've mowed your lawn. It doesn't matter if that's a freakin' theft, infringement, blah-blah analogy or not: the point is that if an artist chooses a certain business model, you're being intellectually dishonest if you say you respect the artist (especially enough to choose them to entertain you), but just not enough to respect them in the one thing that they chiefly ask of their potential audiences (in this example, that they pay for their products).

Out of curiosity, how does your "performance" concept work when it comes to a film that costs millions of dollars to produce? Is the DVD an advertisement, encouraging you to... what, go see the broadway version of the movie? How about: if you don't like that Peter Jackson copyrighted his LOTR movies, that it means you don't like his business model, and so you don't choose him to be your entertainer, and let him recoup his huge expenses from those people that are willing to pay a few dollars for their experience of thousands of people's efforts?

The medium is not an ad, it's a delivery mechanism. What would you call files licensed from iTunes? Are those ads, too? And what about a fine art printmaker who produces, by hand, 250 prints? Are those ads?

Here's an idea: if you don't like what the artist calls their products, admit that you don't like the artist, and turn elsewhere. No doubt some indy film maker that doesn't want to earn anything for his work will soon make a film as fantastic as Jackson's, and not worry about whether anyone pays for it. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll let me know who that would be.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[iminplaya]

That's like saying you respect me, but just not enough to keep you from stiffing me on the agreed payment after I've mowed your lawn.

Wrong. Your statement involves the agreed payment. I made so such agreement with the artist. I'm saying that if he wants my money, he has to perform. I'm under no obligation to support a person's desired business model. That would be the equivilent of him putting a gun to head and telling me I must buy his product just so he doesn't have to work at Burger King.

And what about a fine art printmaker who produces, by hand, 250 prints? Are those ads?

No. Those are the originals. They are worth whatever he can get for them. Photocopies of that product would be the ad to encourage me to buy an original. Just like the music thing. I want the original in the form of a live performance. That is what I'll pay for.

Out of curiosity, how does your "performance" concept work when it comes to a film that costs millions of dollars to produce?

If someone wants to make a million dollar movie, then he'll have to pool his money with associates. His motivation means nothing. He'll just have to be motivated by wanting to see a million dollar movie when it's finished.

I'm not against paying artists for their work, as some would like to insist. I'm just saying for my money I expect a performance, just like I have to perform my line of work to get paid myself. I don't expect special privileges like the content producers do.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[ScentCone]

I made so such agreement with the artist

We're operating under a framework of copyright law. When you pick up that CD or DVD, that (c) on it is the contract. If you don't want to participate in that contract, just don't consume the product. So much of our civilization revolves around the production, presentation, and use of creatively produced or other valuable information that we have said, essentially, that those who produce it are its owners. Those people are more than welcome to say there are no strings attached, and often do. But that's the producer's option, not anyone who comes along and thinks otherwise. Why would we default towards a position of presumed ownership? Because otherwise too many people do exactly what the producer of the material can least afford: run off with it and, in spreading it around contrary to the creator's wishes, remove from it its ability to compensate the producer for the invested time.

I'm under no obligation to support a person's desired business model

Sure you are. You don't have to patronize that person, but you can't simply decide that your "business" model (say, simply ignoring the artist's terms) is the valid one, and taking/reproducing the material without permission. If I open a store renting out widgets by the hour, and my business model is that I charge for that, you cannot alter my business model (by using my services without paying) without facing the consequences. You sure as hell don't have to even visit my store... but if you want the service I'm providing, you either do business with me, or in insisting that I must deliver those services without compensation, you're saying I'm your slave. And since we don't function that way, you can choose to either honor the business model, or go away. It's the same with artists.

Of course, you're off the hook there, because with your sterling ethics, you'd never want the entertainment produced by an artist that embraces the concept of owning their work.

I want the original in the form of a live performance. That is what I'll pay for.

Fine - as long as you don't consume the work of people who never perform live in person outside of the conditions under which they make their performances available to you. Obviously radio, legal downloads, etc., all provide for ways to meet the artists' requirements (in the form of royalties). It must be a shame, though, that you never get to see really good films in for-pay setting.

If someone wants to make a million dollar movie, then he'll have to pool his money with associates. His motivation means nothing. He'll just have to be motivated by wanting to see a million dollar movie when it's finished.

We're not talking about their motivation. We're talking about the fact that their requirement is that they are paid for their work, or you don't get to consume it. You're not required to be part of their audience, but there are terms associated with being so. They are motivated to have a million-dollar movie when they're done, though, because that is (assuming they know their audience and market timing well enough) the product with which they will earn back their investment. Obviously, a poor product deserves what it (doesn't) get. But a really shining piece of work isn't your property just because you say it is. Would you really be comfortable looking, say, David Lynch or Quentin Terantino, or Ron Howard in the eye and telling them that, "Gee, that's a really nice film you've just made there, and I'll be enjoying a ripped-off torrent of it over wine and cheese tonight unless you can arrange for a personal 'performance' tonight when I want to see it, and then I'll give you ten dollars."

just like I have to perform my line of work to get paid myself

Can you even contemplate a line of work where the thing you produce doesn't pay you back unless it produces a certain level of usage? It's all about who wants to take the risk. So

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[iminplaya]

Why would we default towards a position of presumed ownership?

We don't default towards a position of presumed ownership. It is brought about by draconian law written by thieves who ignore it themselves when it's convenient.

If I open a store renting out widgets by the hour, and my business model is that I charge for that, you cannot alter my business model (by using my services without paying) without facing the consequences. You sure as hell don't have to even visit my store... but if you want the service I'm providing...

I can open my own store renting widgets. I can sell them. Again, you have it wrong. I'm not telling anyone to work without compensation. I'm only removing an artificial control used to create artificial shortages. All work is built on another. You can't claim ownership. You have no right to exclusivity.

Of course, you're off the hook there, because with your sterling ethics, you'd never want the entertainment produced by an artist that embraces the concept of owning their work.

The only natural claim they have is that of attribution. It's his resume to show to somebody that he/she can perform when asked, whether in the studio or live on stage, and get paid for the performance. The more he performs, the more he gets paid. No more of this make one hit and collect the rent for the rest of your life. It seems to me that the artists are being a bunch of crybabies who want special treatment everywhere they go. They get all pissed off if they don't get priority service at the restaurant. They sure don't belive in obeying traffic laws. And they want special privileges for being the court jester. Well, lucky you. The public swallowed it. You're getting what you want. The public is throwing billions at your feet. Well, I say it's a crock. Besides, what you're defending is not the artist. It's the industry. That industry is now obsolete. Just like so many others that go belly up when a new kid shows up with something different. This desperate clinging to obsolesence is what holds back progress, just like IP law itself, which whas created to protect obsolete business models since the 1700's, and of course silence govt and corporate critics. This goes for booksellers and movie makers as well. They just have to find a better way. Just like I do when my job is replaced by a machine.

We're operating under a framework of copyright law.

Well, I'll go back to the statement(from another poster) that prompted me to reply the first time. ...but people have got to accept that it's not right... He meant it the other way around, but it applies this way also. Creating artificial scarcity is not right, no matter how you do it.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[ScentCone]

None of what you say will ever even be weighed for credibility until you shake off a glaring logical inconsistency that you continue to invoke.

It's his resume to show to somebody that he/she can perform when asked, whether in the studio or live on stage, and get paid for the performance. The more he performs, the more he gets paid

In your model, how does someone who only produces their work in the studio environment and does not ever "perform" (or whose material cannot be performed because, say, one musician played all 20 tracks) make a living? You're saying that their recordings are ads, even though they are the performance (just like a movie is). If paying the artist for those products is off the table, how does making more of them ever add up to anything? Zero times anything is still zero.

It sounds like you're so fixated on depriving the artists and the marketplace from one of many mechanisms for income/consumption that you're willing to dispense with music and films made by studio professionals just so the inconvenience of the existence of their artform doesn't trip up your position.

The fact is that some art can only be produced through lengthy processes such as studio production. Additional fact: some people are willing to pay to enjoy that work (I'm one of them). Additional fact: some artists are more than happy to only deal with people like me. Additional fact: any artist that doesn't like it can just do whatever they want anyway, and completely forgo publishing, or can publish while waiving their copyrights. Your favorite artists (obviously, the ones that are waiving their rights) can have what you want, and those that prefer to think in terms of owning their own life's work, can have what they want.

It seems to me that the artists are being a bunch of crybabies who want special treatment everywhere they go. They get all pissed off if they don't get priority service at the restaurant. They sure don't belive in obeying traffic laws. And they want special privileges for being the court jester. Well, lucky you. The public swallowed it. You're getting what you want. The public is throwing billions at your feet.

Do you even hear yourself? I begin to see now that you're completely clueless about who "artists" are, and that, I think explains your competely twisted, bitter take how they make a living. Not all of them are shrill Michael Moores, if that's what you're getting at. Not all if them are absurd Barbara Streisands. Some of them are hardworking animators, writers, journalists, symphony conductors, and the vast majority of them have a far more decent, civilized, rational and pleasant demeanor than either you or the stereotypes you're holding up as "artists."

This goes for booksellers and movie makers as well. They just have to find a better way.

No, you have to find a better way to convince writers that your insane idea of them only earning an income when they "perform" their work is somehow rational. If you're right (and you're not), then of course all of those non-"obsolete" writers will of course just jump right up, see the wisdom of your view, and start booking coffee houses where they'll no doubt make enough to pay for that new transmission they need for their car, and the vet bill, and the gas they'll need so they can drive all over town getting their own "performances" from every other person they want to entertain and inform them.

I guess I'm done with this now. You think that artists are evil cartoon characters, and that completely illustrates your state of mind.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[iminplaya]

In your model, how does someone who only produces their work in the studio environment and does not ever "perform" (or whose material cannot be performed because, say, one musician played all 20 tracks) make a living?

Man, there are tons of musicians making good money who never seen the outside of the studio. They write music. It gets used. They get paid. What's the problem? If they want to get paid again, they simply have to write more music. It is wrong to do it once and get paid forever.

No, you have to find a better way to convince writers that your insane idea of them only earning an income when they "perform" their work is somehow rational.

Sorry, they're just another bunch being "victimized" by technology. It happans to lots of folks. It happened to me. I adapted. I can continue my work...in a different fashion. Welcome to the club.

Some of them are hardworking animators, writers, journalists, symphony conductors, and the vast majority of them have a far more decent, civilized, rational and pleasant demeanor than either you or the stereotypes you're holding up as "artists."

And they all get paid for their work...while they perform it. When they stop, there is no need to continue paying them. A good artist will always have work as long as he wants to under normal circumstances. And he will get paid well.

Sheriff of New York

[solomonrex]

So, basically, they're betting that Eliot Spitzer is our next governor? I mean, why else single out NY, except that ES goes after big corporations like a fame-seeking pit bull with rabies.

Re:Sheriff of New York

[Neward Rylet]

I think even New York Republicans are betting he's going to be their next governor. That's why Pataki dropped out, he was polling so low against Spitzer and he didn't have any chance of keeping his office running against someone so popular. He didn't want to run for President after losing his governorship. I also have little doubt that Mr. Spitzer also has Presidential ambitions. He probably wont run in 2008 but 2012 or 2016 he's going to be a sure-shot for the Dems.

Legal fees

[rasty]

...the rest being flagged to pay Microsoft's legal costs

With "the rest" amounting at $1mil, it's not too surprising Microsoft won! :)

i dont understand.....

[brizok]

as far as im concerned the money doesn't belong to them in the first place....i dont know about you but i get a whoooole lot of spam. why does one company..being microsoft or not, ever even get the ability to sue this guy. Don't get me wrong I'm glad that the spam king is done for. But (in my eyes) Microsoft is giving money away that doesn't belong to them in the first place.

Re:i dont understand.....

[Anonymous Coward]

unbelievable. MS chases spammers and does good for a change and still losers like you can only bitch and moan about how they didn't have the right to the money anyway. Grow UP. shit if they gave everything they had to the hungry of the world you would still bitch and come up with some bullshit that they were hungry because MS overcharged everyone and stopped others from helping the hungry.

Re:i dont understand.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Think Hotmail. Spamming Hotmail-accounts actually hurt MS.

Re:i dont understand.....

[spectrm]

sure, but Hotmail wasn't the only mail provider that got hit. There's yahoo, gmail, and countless others. Not to mention the R&D that companies like AOL, Comcast, Ameritech, and SBC have put into pop-up blocking and spam filtering. Then think of all the customers and businesses that have spent hundreds of man-hours in the last year alone wading through spam instead of getting their productive emails in a timely and clean fashion. It's not just MS's money at all. This should have been a class-action lawsuit. I'm glad someone got this guy, even if it is MS, but they should have filed a class-action suit and got others on board. As much competition as there is in software, this is also a community of developers and users - even if half of them hate the other half.

A class-action suit would've gotten more money out of Spitzer AND would have served ALL of the people who've suffered under his business practices.

Re:i dont understand.....

[shark72]

"Microsoft is giving money away that doesn't belong to them in the first place."

The legal system in the USA is set up so that, generally speaking, if somebody has caused you harm, you can take them to court. Richter has cost Microsoft money by pounding their Hotmail servers with spam, so they've collected their due.

Likewise, if you run a webmail service and you can show that Scott Richter's spamming has cost you money, you can sue him, too.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

Re:i dont understand.....

[gromitcode]

Absolutely and AOL, Yahoo, gmail et al can also do like MS and put up there own money to fight the scum and win and then do whatever they want with the proceeds.

Re:i dont understand.....

[spectrm]

you forget that in the US you cannot be tried more than once for the same violation. I believe that also applies to the civil courts, hence the existence of class action lawsuits.

Re:i dont understand.....

[gromitcode]

each email/spam sent is an offense in itself. Microsoft sued for email sent through and too hotmail, AOL can sue for AOL, yahoo for yahoo mail. Hence he can be sued by each individual, however it is not cost effective for individuals and hence the existence of class actions.

Re:i dont understand.....

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, that makes sense

Re:Computer-relasted skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, these kind of skill would be actually pretty useful in the real world. Real world, as in: what happens outside of your parents basement.

News?

[ChrisF79]

Didn't we hear about this a few days ago?

Re:News?

[Darth_brooks]

This is a "follow up" story. The original simply said microsoft won the case. Today we learned what microsoft was going to do with the money.

I figured Bill would just blow the money on strippers and coke. Or perhaps on a death ray. Maybe even buy a grilled cheese sandwich off of ebay with the image of Don Knotts wearing a burka while training a horse to ride a unicycle burned into it.

Re:News?

[ChrisF79]

Maybe you heard about it today but I think a lot of us heard about it a few days ago.

Re:News?

[WML MUNSON]

Redundant story.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/16 13256&tid=109&tid=111&tid=123&tid=98

from the article dated Tue Aug 9:

Smith said that Microsoft will reinvest all of the money, after legal expenses, including $5 million that will go to increase Internet enforcement efforts and expand technical and investigative support to help law enforcers to address computer-related crimes.

grow up

[DavidMHodgey]

i think your all pretty sad bashing microsoft for giving money to charity. i mean, sure they could easily afford to give more. but we should be thanking them for giving anything at all. grow up and stop bashing microsoft just because its what you do. i have have nothing but respect for a man such as gates who gives so much to charity, and besides, much of it isnt slammed all over the papers like ./'ers seem to imagine it is. i genuinly think he's a good person.

Re:grow up

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Slashdot is just becoming sterotypes anyway. They have to have 2-3 google stories everyday even if it is like google news have RSS feeds. (oh please, everyone has RSS these days). And then goes out of their way to find an anti-microsoft story. I never heard a single word about microsoft charity for aids etc through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. When sometime back Gates donated money for a building in GaTech, everyone was still fussing. Did you hear Google CEO's doing anything like that ? Don't give me a crap about $1 salary, that is one hell good way to save on taxes (ask Steve Jobs).

Sometimes I feel slashdot is just like CNN and FOX, another source for biased news (filter yourself).

Re:grow up

[Perl-Pusher]

i think your all pretty sad bashing microsoft for giving money to charity.

I wasn't bashing your precious Microsoft. I was pointing out it wasn't enought for a Multibilion dollar company to worry about keeping. They get more by buying goodwill. It's a business decision that has nothing to do with the concept of good or evil except in the public perception. If anything the "not enough"offended you, apply it to the spammer. Fine him enough for MS to worry about keeping some of it.

Re:grow up

[dustmite]

And that is a great example of the kind of fuzzy, uninformed overly-sentimental pro-company feelings that no regular marking campaign can buy! Those donations are obviously worth every cent in PR value. (Now go research the other, unethical side of Microsoft, so you can perhaps have a more balanced view.)

Re:grow up

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I wasn't bashing your precious Microsoft

Where exactly did the parent poster say that Microsoft was 'precious' to him?

Typical zealot logic. Just because he doesn't agree with your mindless, knee-jerk criticism, he must be an MS 'shill' or a 'fanboi'.

The man has a point. You really should grow up (even if your 50 already) and get a more balanced view of the world.

Learn to live without using your hate figures as an emotional prop or as a way of 'belonging'.

And get out more!

yay! good thing we have Microsoft!

[jaiyen]

Feels weird writing that on slashdot...

Re:computer related crimes.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have probably all done it at some stage (piracy that is), [...] I know nothing physical was taken, but under current law it's still stealing.

Wow! I'm impressed! That's the biggest troll I've ever seen and without any good argument or explaination, worse than the GNAA.

Two small details you forgot: I don't and never pirated anything AND this is not stealing, just copying bytes over a network and you seem to lack this essential knowledge.

23 billion dollars given

[jasonhamilton]

Bill Gates, who is considered, the wealthiest man in the world, has started his very own foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced on 6/6/01, that in the first half of the year, Bill and Melinda Gates have given their charitable foundation an additional $2 billion, bringing the total endowment of the foundation to $23.5 billion. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

Sounds like one of those movie pitches...

[InThane]

There's some generator on the web that makes random movie plots, sounds like something that it would come up with:

Microsoft and a Spammer's millions team up. Together, they fight crime!

Re:Sounds like one of those movie pitches...

[iainl]

You mean,

He's an ex-spammer, handing over millions of dollars. They're a multinational corporation, regularly investigated for anti-competitive practices:

THEY. FIGHT. CRIME!!!

I'd buy it.

Call me skeptical...

[deadsquid]

...but I'd like to see if the $5M is actual cash, or an equivalent amount of Microsoft product. Many companies donate product and use their MSRP in calculating the value of a donation, then spin that into a nice story where they talk about their generosity. Is the money they donate going to be in the form of infrastructure software, end-user applications, and company-specific training, or will it be cash to specific organisations for the purpose of hiring, training, and equipping personnel.

Also, which agenicies will get the money to fight crime? Will it be traditional law enforcement, or will it be a group like the Business Software Alliance?

$5M sounds nice up front, but before I say "gosh, that's great", I'd like to hear what exactly they're giving, and to who.

Re:Call me skeptical...

[shark72]

" ...but I'd like to see if the $5M is actual cash, or an equivalent amount of Microsoft product. "

The article linked from the summary makes it straightforward. They got a cash judgement from Scott Richter; any cash they're able to get from him (minus the $1MM stated to cover legal fees) will be donated.

This isn't always the case. AOL recently won a judgement against a spammer who had no cash, so AOL was awarded the spammer's Hummer H2 and some gold. They are planning a sweepstakes to give these to lucky AOL users -- although, of course, "lucky AOL user" is a contradiction in terms.

"Also, which agenicies will get the money to fight crime? Will it be traditional law enforcement, or will it be a group like the Business Software Alliance?"

It's going to law enforcement agencies and the state of New York. The BSA is a private organization, and not a law enforcement agency.

No "punative damages"

[goldspider]

This was a settlement, not a judgement. Hence no punative damages.

Re:computer related crimes.

[Darth_brooks]

If it's going to law enforcement, It'll end up going to the "OMG Kiddie PorN!!!!!!!! It's teh evil!!!!!" fund.

Don't get me wrong. Child pornographers deserve their own special ring of Hell. But it seems that to law enforcement, computer crime == kiddie porn. Period. No other crime occurs on a computer. Ever. Just child porn. Nothing else. End of line.

There are other crimes occuring involved the magic, glowing grey box.

Sounds like they are just moving it around...

[kabocox]

I don't know what sort of taxes are on that kind of income, but "giving" away to law enforcement most likely means that more of that $5 million is going to end up together at the same place. If MS keep it, most likely a good chunk would be taxed and a little bit of it would end up every where. Law Enforcement would end up with some money, but it'd more be like $500-$5,000 instead of $5,000,000. Donating money like this is great for MS.
1. The money is spent directly on objectives that MS wants to help.
2. The MS saves on taxes
3. The money could be considered direct targeted PR for those markets.

Re:Sounds like they are just moving it around...

[dhasenan]

Charitable deductions come from your income--they're basically not computed into your taxes. If the charity $ were deducted from the amount you had to pay, then I'd have this objection; but if you give away half your money to charity, you're still taxed on half your money.

It's a rather crappy system, in my view. One designed to encourage people to pay taxes like good lemmings. The only way it could help is by dropping you down into a lower tax bracket, and $5M won't do that for Microsoft.

Great.

[base3]

Five million to harass small-time copyright infringers and the people who would otherwise be our saviors from creeping DRM. Wonderful.

Re:computer related crimes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't engage in piracy. I've gotten reprimanded for writing a note to my direct supervisors, telling them that we were exceeding our number of available licenses for X server software and offering them a superior open source drop-in replacement of CygWin, and citing the number of licenses we were exceeding by exact numbers to get them to take it seriously. And I resigned from another workplace that engaged in wide-open piracy, sending MS equipped computers to a client all using the same MSDN copy of Windows XP Pro and Office XP. Then I quietly informed the clients, which was not prohibited by the NDA because an NDA cannot force you to engage in illegal behavior. But I'm also not stupid, so I covered my tracks on letting the client know.

The clients were already so angry at my former employer, it was just another nail in the coffin, but it turned a tidy profit into a half million dollar loss when they had to go out and buy all those MS Office licenses and waste their manpower to re-install all those machines. And that process turned up a host of other problems that cost even more money to RMA the machines.

Microsoft to fight crime

[kisak]

Why don't they start by handing themselves in?

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

And the money goes to such laudable causes as ensuring that every school in every corner of the world uses Windows and to religous right think tanks like the Disvocery Institute (the nr. 1 promoter of "Intelligent Design").

Re:Yep

[docflan]

And the money goes to such laudable causes as ensuring that every school in every corner of the world uses Windows and to religous right think tanks like the Disvocery Institute (the nr. 1 promoter of "Intelligent Design").

Link?

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the first Google hit. This is just one grant for one particular project, they've gotten several more.

Re:Yep

[Knuckles]

I'd mod the AC up, but can't:

"Here is the first Google hit. This is just one grant for one particular project, they've gotten several more."

close, but not cynical enough.

[twitter]

Train them to use Outlook, Word and Excel or do they mean .NET,C# and Monad ?. Sort of catch them young approach ?.

Yes, we should imagine that much of the "donation" will be software and hardware valued at retail. That's typical of Microsoft.

What's more disturbing is having police departments business run by Microsoft. One of the first things Bill G did was to make sure the class scheduling program he sold his high school put him with all the "pretty girls". The rest of his career and Microsoft practices have been a series of broken trust, from breaking other people's programs to spying on every thing you do. Do we really want that kind of equipment in police stations? At any price?

The subjugation of public institutions by private interests is called fascism. When your city government clicks, "I agree" to the average M$ EULA, you are very screwed. Say no to backdoored public computing.

Re:close, but not cynical enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. I mean, this is an article about email disclaimers, right? The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx. WTF?

Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own. Or these two. Or this one.

Still not convinced? This is what twitter considers "humour" while going about his daily "M$" routine.

More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, twitter wants to be RMS, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean,

Re:close, but not cynical enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first things Bill G did

High school and 'pretty girls'? If this was some Linux hacker you'd be saying how really cool and clever he is.

Oh yeah, linking to Rotten.com to make a point about how Bill Gates is evil. And we wonder why others outside the free software community laugh at us. Thanks a lot.

My Thoughts

[CrashRoX]

There's a whole lot of back and forth going on here. The only thing everyone can agree on is that the spammer deserved the fine. Now everyone wants to know why Microsoft is entitled to that fine? I personally believe they are entitled to it. First and most obvious they are the ones that created the law suit and did the actual suing. Microsoft isn't a government agency, what they win shouldn't be stripped from them. In all honesty if Microsoft didn't sue this guy, he would probably still be spamming. In which case no one is better off. Secondly anyone and everyone can sue. I know I'm going to get shit about how the American legal system sucks and blah blah blah. But that's a perk/pitfall of living in this country. As far as Microsoft donating the money, it's a brilliant move from a business standpoint. As mentioned earlier the cost of an advertising campaign would far exceed that of the $5m donation. The donation created goodwill and great PR. It's almost impossible to put a price on goodwill. People need to stop looking at Microsoft (and other corporations) as a public service. These companies exist to make money. Period. Microsoft did a good thing, they are the heroes here. They are the only ones who stood up against this guy and dished out the cash to do it. Yes the Million bucks in legal fees is pocket change to them. But I don't see anyone else willing to anti up. Plus if you really wanted an argument to show they are directly affected. They own an email service. I'm sure millions of this guys email has gone through there servers at some point, costing them money and inconveniencing clients. Congratulations Microsoft on your victory!

Everyone who thinks that Gates is going to dress up in a batman costume is very wrong. The costume would be more like Howard Sterns fart man!

As if

[LividBlivet]

they will ever see a dime.

What about the billions of ill-begotten dollars

[QuietLagoon]

that Microsoft acquired from its customers via the illegal leveraging of its monopoly? Is Microsoft going to donate that to the Justice Department to help it fight corporate abuse?

Computer Crimes...

[drigz]

For example, infringement of Microsoft's "patents"?

Typical because of experience

[phoenix321]

I don't know about you or the other /.ers, but I certainly distrust Microsoft for everything they do. It's not misantropy or pessimism, but experience from the past. Whatever MS did or announced to do, everything they ever made, produced or started was primarily to support their own interests, corner the competition or gain an advantage somehow. Although this is the usual and expected behavior of a for-profit organization, Microsoft certainly proved time and again having nearly no moral obligations to themselves.

So it's not cynism, but a thing we should've learned in the past: Microsoft will hold nothing back and leave no sleazy trick untried. Just like I won't instantly believe a notorious liar when he's saying "I'll be true now", I won't instanly believe Microsoft when they're saying "We're the good guys now".

Microsoft haven't been "good" in a philantrophic sense for a very long time now and it takes a lot more than a donation of any amount to convince me otherwise.

What kind of "crime"

[FreeUser]

When you have billions you can be really generous with millions. The price of good advertising is probably higher. Giving the paltry five million away buys a lot of good will from New York state.

Not only that, one is also forced to wonder what sorts of "cybercrime" this money is targeted at. Will it be used to go after phishers, spammers, virus, trojan, and worm authors, or will it be used to persecute teenagers trading Britanny Spears tunes and television episodes they forgot to tivo (or don't receive in their area, like particular british sitcoms not broadcast in the ever-more-prudush United States)?

It isn't a given that this money is going toward "the public good" at all. It could be driving a particular agenda many here would consider anti-social at best (legalities aside).

One would hope not, but without further information, and given Microsoft's past behavior in other areas, we probably should reserve judgement (and maintain some skepticisms) until we know more.

"Computer-related crime"

[J'raxis]

Which probably means prosecuting p2p users.

Re:"Computer-related crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I Second this statement!

Oh, sorry, MS, didn't you hear...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The spammer is going to take a page from your book and pay with what they deem as $5M worth of their products/services.

You're not getting cash after all, but hey, you could use your free spamming services to promote Vista!

Key to this... New York's Mil

[dwayner79]

This is a brilliant move by Microsoft. According to the open letter on MSs site:

"In appreciation of the role of the New York Attorney General, another $1 million of this settlement money will be directed to New York state..."

found: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/a ug05/08-09BradSmithLetter.mspx

What state AG would not look seriously into computer crimes if they know there is some extra cash in it for them! MS sure knows how to play the game.

Re:Key to this... New York's Mil

[Neward Rylet]

And by New York Attorney General they mean the [probable] next Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer. And if I judge his ambitions correctly, the man will also probably run for president.

Is the million dollars to New York

[DrugCheese]

by any chance in coupon form only redeemable for software from a certain software company?

Logic 101

[justins]

Also, 5mn is a miniscule microscopic portion of the amount MS spends in R&D anyways, so it's doubtful this money is gonna help fight crime or spam.

That is stupid. $5M might be a "miniscule" portion of their R&D - it's not, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. Even so, it does not follow that because it is a small amount in relation to their R&D budget, it is not a sufficient sum to aid law enforcement. That inference just does not make a bit of sense.

Of course, not only both your premise and your logic are off here, so is your conclusion. I guess people are jaded when they hear about how much money their elected officials are spending on toys, but five million dollars is a fucking lot of money and police organizations which aren't federal tend to be under-funded. So it could conceivably make a difference.

Re:Logic 101

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "aiding law enforcement" sounds like a bribe. Any donation to a law enforcement agency should be illegal.

I do agree this is a lot of money. That is the problem.

Re:Logic 101

[michrech]

I'd like to see that money go into some sort of account that has lots of interest yearly. Once done, I'd like to see the department get only that interest yearly. Do you have any idea how much interest would be had yearly on $5 million?

--
telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- TW2002 and LORD registered!

Re:Logic 101

[BlewScreen]

It could be invested in the stock market! Maybe MSFT?

:p

-bs

NY Law enforcement

[inode_buddha]

As a resident of NY, I'm actually in favor of this, even though I'm a linux die-hard. I *really* hope NY doesn't just toss this into the General Fund and lose it on some left-wing pork barrel project. That sort of thing is all too common here; the highway tolls were supposed to disappear years ago, and yet the tolls are still there. The power company in my part of the state is the single largest land-owner, and yet it pays no taxes. So, I really hope these MS funds are used for cyber-crime law enforcement. FWIW I think very highly of the police here; they usually require at least a 4-year degree and military/para-military background in my area. So, these guys tend to be big, strong, and smart. That doesn't mean they know jack-all about computer crimes or even computers. So if this means they get some computer crime training, that's fine with me. There are some *big* dataenters and backbone here, so I imagine the field is ripe.

A guide on how to spend this money fighting crime

[sootman]

can be found here.

Because to get mod points you have to be a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure and simple. Join the circle and reach to your right. Dig?

Re:Because to get mod points you have to be a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Alles passierte am Telefon... This are some Links with adult content, where i found in the web. nice links someone, but someone it is not for me. Looking if some link inside, where is interesting for you. Für die Anbieter einschlägiger "0190-Ruf-mich-an"-Stöhn-Nummern und andere teure und oft auch wertlose Telefon-"Mehrwertdienste" brechen schwerere Zeiten an. Die Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post ist fünf Jahre nach der völligen Liberalisierung des Telefonmarktes in Deutschland entschlossen, von Verbraucherschützern immer wieder beklagten Missbrauch einzudämmen. "Der Wildwuchs, der da stattgefunden hat, stellt insgesamt ein Ärgernis dar", sagte der Präsident der Regulierungsbehörde, Matthias Kurth, im Gespräch mit der Nachrichtenagentur AP in Bonn. Telefonsex Cam Dank des neuen "Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung des Missbrauchs von (0)190er/(0)900er Mehrwertdiensterufnummern" hat die Behörde nun das notwendige Instrument in der Hand.

Avert thine eyes...

[Moofie]

I just puked in my coffee imagining Steve Ballmer running around in tights, with his underwear on the outside. "I am Sweat-Man!"

I had no choice but to share the image with everybody else, in a futile attempt to get it out of my own skull...

Offtopic?

[halber_mensch]

How in the hell is this offtopic?

Re:moderator.....

[Anonymous Coward]

From redundant to troll. Looks like the mods worked it out.

In other news...

[Glog]

In solidarity with Microsoft, American Airlines is donating a Jesus-shaped peanut to be sold on ebay. The profits will go towards fighting terrorism and making the skies safer.

"Fashionable" opinions?

[dustmite]

The bitterness with Microsoft got old and stale 10 years ago.

Oh ... and there I was under the impression that the anti-MS sentiment was about the fact that the company actually continues to behave unethically to this day, not about whether or not it was "fashionable" or "not fashionable" to be anti-MS ... silly me. I didn't realise bashing Microsoft "was, like, so yesterday!"

Your post reminds me of how Nike successfully turned around rising negative sentiment against the company over their sweatshop labour practices by creating a clever youth-targeted ad campaign that manipulated young people into simply thinking it was no longer "cool" to whine about the sweatshop labour because the topic was, well, 'so yesterday'. Of course they never stopped the sweatshop labour practices.

Are we so divorced from reality that our opinions about serious, real-life problems are now mostly based on how "hot", "current" or "fashionable" a topic is, rather than on, you know, facts?

Re:"Fashionable" opinions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood, (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question." To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge-to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or you behavior-this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to Our Father (Satan) and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are...little nourished by the past...

-The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis

The Unfortunate Truth

[Chokai]

Is reflected in today's cartoon by David Horsey in the Seattle-PI.

We need to come up with something more agressive and effective. I for one am a fan of the much discussed idea DOS attacks against the spammers websites, despite the moral and ethical issues people have raised. A nice side effect is that it will somewhat discourage ISPs from hosting them also.

Lobbying money

[ickypoo]

If Eliot Spitzer is expected to be running for Governor of NY in the next election cycle, can someone tell me how this isn't just a 'donation' to a good will publicity campaign on his part? MS is turning a positive outcome into crass lobbying money.

For that matter, I find it quite ironic that this whole issue revolves around the state of New York, which just busted Sony for payola. Why is it illegal to fork out money and gifts out to radio stations that lockstep to your wishes, but NOT illegal when you do the same thing in politics? Why isn't lobbying a public disclosure issue?

In related news..

[coronaride]

The world's largest piece of humble pie was served to and eaten by over 800000 slashdot users...with a side of ice cream and peanut m&m's..

Spam FROM Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

For years I've been using a different unique FROM: address in each message I send, and I've logged them all in a database. Years ago (1998?) I gave the address XXXX_msdn@MY-DOMAIN.COM to the MSDN website registration. In 1999 I received an email to that address about Y2K compliance. In the next five years that address got no emails at all, until yesterday I got a spam addressed to it:

"Congratulations! You have been invited to join Home of Research, an exciting new research panel that pays you for your opinions."

So, how did these spammers get that address?

I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I'd be really suprised if they had deliberately done this. Maybe their database has been hacked?

Thoughts anyone?

Re:0.01%

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the 1 million they give toward education does some good soon, because the 5 million going to law-enforcement seems unlikely to help you figure out how much of the original 7 million is left over...

How nice

[houghi]

expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults

Is that computer skills, or the use of Windows Software, Hotmail and MSNSearch?

Re:How nice

[chawly]

Nice indeed - even pretty. Microsoft is a marketing orientated machine. The old adage goes "more bang for the buck" but that ain't the game anymore. Now it's "pass the bucks or it's gonna be a grudge fucking that your gonna get". Sorry for the vulgarity, but it is the impression that this leaves me with. Just my thought - excuse it, please.

"expand computer skills training for youths" =

[Serveert]

indocrinate them into Windows.

Microsoft choice?

[tepples]

at least you have the choice not to be subjected to Microsoft products.

...at least you have the choice not to be subjected to the Internet at all. Watch as residential broadband ISPs implement Trusted Network Connect by 2015, and only people with a "trusted" Windows OS will be able to get an IP address.

I'm confused...

[HogynCymraeg]

which is the american government?

Re:computer related crimes.

[Momoru]

I'm not sure where you get that idea? I've seen plenty of cases of law enforcement breaking up illegal drug trades, phishing, fraud, piracy etc on computers. Maybe the child porn ones are high profile, but it certainly doesn't seem like thats ALL they are worried about. And even if it was, I would say child porn probably would be one of the best ones to focus your efforts on as it hurts people on a different level then the crimes cited above.

What the....?

[nervexmachina]

First Google becomes evil and now MS is giving money to fight spam? What's next -- wearing our hats upside down and having hamburgers eat people?

Quick Robin

[Anonymous Coward]

Too the Batmobile!!!

One Word:

[displaced80]

(or should I say acronym):

OCP.

Looking forward to Microsoft RoboCop v1.0 (SP3, plus KB990212 to address the gun-holster jamming caused by the earlier KB990112 patch for the 'erroneous firing into crowds of civilians' issue).

Re:computer related crimes.

[iminplaya]

Get the laws changed

Hmmm, just how many millions do you have in you war chest to convince people to vote on a law that they could care less about?

...but people have got to accept that it's not right...

According to who? Garp? It is just as valid to say that the concept of IP is not right. That it robs the public. That it only encourages hoarding and speculation. Once you divulge an idea, you can't take it back for yourself exclusively. I consider that to be stealing. Just because the law says otherwise, doesn't mean that the law is right. The legality of copyright is one thing. The morality of it is another issue entirely.

$5 mil could END spam

[Anonymous Coward]

A LOT of professional assassins could be hired to exterminate the entire spamhaus list with that kind of $$$. Probably the entire top 200.

too bad its currently against the law.

Redundant now?!

[halber_mensch]

This was a perfectly valid observation. How is it redundant?

Big money

[innate]

Wow, $5 million!! If only Microsoft had that kind of money all the time, imagine how much crime they could fight.

Ohh what a surprise...

[Dunbal]

Ohh help I've been moderated by the pro Microsoft league... you think they will donate $5M cash do you?

Re:Ohh what a surprise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, there are two things about /. you need to remember.

1: Most people are full of shit,
2: Most people don't like to be told they are full of shit.

But that's democracy for you.... I much prefer to battle it out.

Headline In Other Words

[Master of Transhuman]

"Microsoft bribes cops with $5 million to look the other way when Microsoft commits antitrust crimes."

And pays its legal fees with the rest...

Meanwhile, spam rolls on.

They'll never see the money...

[mr_zorg]

Just because this guy has been ordered to pay a $7m fine doesn't mean he *CAN* pay it. Sure, they'll garnish his accounts, sell his house, etc., but that won't come anywhere close. Since MS knows they'll never actually see the money anyway, sure let's give it all away to worthy causes. Good PR, but they'll never see the full amount.

Computer crimes?

[Barumpus]

If they are spending $5 mil to fight computer crimes, how much of that will go towards fixing IE to the point it is truely secure?

Sorry about a poor attempt at an IE joke but it was the very thought that came to mind after reading this.

Re:Computer crimes?

[chawly]

And it was very thoughtful of you to take the time to write it down. Thank you for the thought. I find innocence to be quite without price. Congratulations.

Kinda confussed

[zenst]

So Microsoft gets to sue people who are either explioting there operationg systems shortcommings to send spam or just sending spam to ALL email users and Microsoft gets to sue them. how does that pan out, we victims of spam get nothing and one of the main causes of spam (worms trojans and general spam bottery) gets the money.

Spam kinda works all around the WOrld so do they now sue the same spammer in several countries or do we the public get some kick-back as well?

Personaly I'd still like to sue the ruddy ass's of the cold calling companies that ring you up from abroad and try to sell shit, had one ask for my dad to sell life insurance like 2 days ater he died and they do this shit from abroad like the states to the UK coz they can avoid blacklisting and then wonder why telco's have there exchanges rewritten over there the assholes.

Re:Not enough - Def Charity

[SirLanse]

Charity is when your left hand does not know what your right hand is doing. Public Relations is when EVERYONE knows what you are doing. This is PR. and for chump change they are getting lots of folks to think good things. How about fixing Exchange so it does not blow.

5 million in cash or free Microsoft licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

When they say $5 million, do they mean cash or do they mean $5 million worth of Microsoft product licenses.

I didn't RTFA, so if Microsoft is indeed donating this in cash, I applaud and thank them.

Another Use...

[verbatim_verbose]

Perhaps using the 5 million to hire an external company to audit and fix all the security holes they can find in Windows and other MS software would help prevent crime in a more useful way?

$5e6

[IchBinEinPenguin]

should be just about enough for the police to buy legal licenses for windows.
which means they can keep getting "genuinely advantaged" patches.
which is actually very helpful.

Re:Dupe of the week

[arbitraryaardvark]

It's a dupe. All this info was in the previous post (yesterday? day before?) recently.
What I still don't know, is whether the 5 million really exists, and has been paid or will be paid.
TFA indicated the corporate shell was ready to file bankruptcy. Big judgments against spammers aren't news. Actually collecting is news. Get back to us with proof the money has been paid, and that would be a followup, not a dupe.

stupid stupid stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

an obvious effort by microsoft to look good in the public image, but a poor one at best. hey MS, what about the other 7000000000 trillion dollars youre sitting on? why dont you actually donate a bit more than 6 mil? 6 mil is nothing when spread out upon government agencies and city programs. your lame operating system is a big reason spam is a problem in the first place- i say you owe it to the public to do more.
i cant wait until windows vista comes out and it is just as open to virii and spyware, and MS turns around and says "we'll fix that in the next service pack, we promise, just dont stop buying our shit until we deliver it.."

Hopefully...

[Hosiah]

This will be the last we have to hear about this. This would be my equivalent of seeing Adolf Hitler stoop to pat a dog on the head on his way to watching the new execution chambers, and the stories ring out all week on the front headlines "Hitler compassionate towards animals!", "The dog's side of the story!", "An interview with the touched child who owns the dog.", "What the dog plans to do in the future.", "What the fleas on the dog think about it.", "Hitler also said to be quite fond of wolves." , "The impact of the life-changing act of kindness, now from the perspective of the tapeworms inside the dog."

Fact is, seven million is what's in the tissue after Bill Gates blows his nose.

Re:Hopefully...

[chawly]

I should like to personally welcome our new wolverine overlords. Eat more Bill, I say.

Re:0.01%

[Doc Ruby]

You're a retard. 0.01% is the approximate percentage of Microsoft's revenue this year represented by the $2M they're "just keeping of the $7M. Jerk.

DISCLAIMER: We are not responsible for bad math

[SCVirus]

The rest = 7 million

Re:computer related crimes.

[bcmm]

I don't and never pirated anything

Are you sure? Check how restrictive licences can be. Have you never installed something on two of your own computers when the licence doesn't permit it, for example?

You must have done something. Have you never copied a tape or taped some radio, back when everyone did?

Re:0.01%

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -2
    100% Offtopic

The topic is Microsoft's spending $5M of the $7M they got for their users' damage by spammers. On "fighting crime", security holes and other spammer opportunities to work with Microsoft for mutual profit. So TrollMods hit me with "Offtopic", because supposedly that mod doesn't have the same cost when metamod time comes around, while maybe you're reading this message. For great justice, metamod down a spammer TrollMod.