Slashdot Mirror
FTC States Bloggers Must Disclose Paid Reviews
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that in the first revision of how endorsements and testimonials work since 1980, bloggers will now be required by the FTC to clearly disclose freebies or payments they received for product reviews. "the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest. The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation. The rules take effect Dec. 1."
Maybe the astroturfing garbage will finally stop... or at least be more obvious.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
So we'll be seeing fewer reviews on slashdot, then?
What about bloggers that are not U.S. citizens?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Stop calling it lobbying and call it by its real name: bribery. Will the politicians be fined to death in slices of $11K?
Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation. Note to self: require a payment of at least $12,000 to endorse a product in my blog.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I may be incorrect on this, but do american politicians need to do the same, i don't believe they do (when considering modern lobbying)?
It's a funny country when the random blogger on the interwebs is held to a higher standard than those that govern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States (it looks like ethic reform bills have been repeatedly struck down... surprise on that on eh?)
So what exactly constitutes a "blogger", or a "paid review"? If I post a twitter update, is that a "blog"? What about a note on facebook, is that a blog? What if I don't call it a blog, but call it a public diary instead?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What's considered a blog? Is a twitter message included? What about facebook status updates? Affiliate links? It seems that almost every message that mentions a product on sites that make money will now have to include a disclaimer.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
So does this mean we won't see anymore fastmail.fm articles about a service with 10mb+no.spam.filter is somehow competing with gmail?
if they ever catch this 'Anonymous Coward' guy, they will throw the book at him.
I can't believe they're doing this. I don't care if a review is paid or not. If I can't think analytically or critical about a review(er) then I deserve what I get. How does the process even work. Can I go around submitting tons of accusations to an FTC site about any random blog? How are they defining a blog or blogger? How does a blogger defend themselves from accusations? On a separate issue, this is really terrible reporting. There is almost no information.
Do you speak it?
Does that mean I must tell people about my government check when I debunk UFO sightings on the Internet ?
I didn't think the FCC had much authority over the internet. It's not like its radio waves here. The FCC can't regulate mail or bulletin boards. What statute gives them authority to do this?
Because 122 characters should be enough for anybody.
IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.
Same for campaign donations.. every attempt, that I've seen, to put restrictions on either of these practices has been quickly circumvented.
How in the heck do they propose to enforce this? most bloggers are anonymous. Many don't live in the US. Even Cringely doesn't use his real name. And then there is the sheer number. Moreover an underhanded company could easily soak up a few 11K fines (unlikely they would have to pay many).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Doing this brings blogs into alignment with a lot of media paid advertising. No one should worry (or be elated) about the end of these things because even with the "This program is a paid advertisement of XYZ Co..." there are just as many infomercials floating around than there always was.
Advertising isn't necessarily wrong (not necessarily right either but that is another thread). It is when advertising presents itself as something other than advertising that is a problem.
Then they don't suffer such fascist oppression. Unless, of course, their country happens to have an extradition treaty with the US...
I'm no law expert, maybe someone here is. How exactly does this work when dealing with things like:
Basically, what are the virtual and physical borders (if any) of this law? Is this going to end up being something else that just gets taken offshore, like all the internet gambling sites today seem to be doing?
So many blogs and websites are nothing but shills for publishers and vendors and don't disclose it. This should stop unethical companies like Sony sending out their paid astroturfers and viral marketers without it being disclosed.
I also wonder how sites like MMORPG will survive when they have to disclose payments from publishers (like SOE) along with fluff pieces and "interviews" about them.
Corporatism != Free Market
I misread. It's FTC. My bad.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
The FTC is wrong to suggest that a "product review" is some easy to identify thing. If I write that I love the Slap-Chop am I reviewing it? When does it change from opinion to review? Will a lawyer need to review everything before it's posted, or should we trust that government won't try to misuse this?
Writing on the web covers *all* modes, from babel to academic works. Regulating it as commercial is just wrong.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
FCC =/= FTC.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
The FTC rules only apply to people in the US. Once again this is an example of how one country's laws are meaningless on the Internet. They will simply pay non-Americans to astroturf. You cannot tell whether someone is typing with an American accent on the net - although cultural references can sometimes give it away.
From the future:
Once upon a time, the internet was uncontrolled for a while. In this unkempt jungle, ideas flourished, and free speech of all kinds and from all sides was posted. Then the day came when the government decided to regulate what bloggers wrote. It was just a first step that got people used to the idea of the government making rules for free speech on the internet. As time passed, more laws were created, and eventually, the internet reverted back to its government-controlled ARPANET state--a haven for regulated speech as dictated by the government, provided by the government to post what the government wants to hear. No longer would people exercise their brains and form their own judgements. The government did the thinking for them...
Like to see you enforce it! HA!
I worked as a videogame reviewer for a number of years and the amount of bought and paid for "reviews" in that game is just silly. I once panned MGS3 (for being all hype and cutscene and little substance) and got a nasty letter from them stating they would not continue to reimburse me or advertise for our site... we were a totally independent site and took no money or ads in the first place.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
I really want the conflicts of interest disclosed. By bloggers too. But far more importantly the conflicts of interest by media shills, credit rating agencies, politicians, think tanks and policy institutes and lobbyists must also be disclosed, with lot more stringent requirements.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If Slap-Chop Manufacturing And Brain Surgeries Inc. gives you stuff in exchange for your endorsement of Slap-Chop, then you're affected. If they don't, you are not. Does it get any simpler than that?
Except that he hasn't fapped over every Apple thing ever. He pretty convincingly addressed all this with Leo Laporte on a recent episode of TWIT.
For some reason I misread that as "a recent episode of TMNT"...
Needless to say I was rather confused...
Bow-ties are cool.
ANY statement of endorsement in print, media, or on the web, where ANY form of payment, discount, freebie, etc was given, with or without a request for a favorablke posting, requires disclosure
My wife's gardening website includes a link to her friend's wedding bouquet service with language indicating my wife's endorsement.
While she was not paid for that link, they have known each other for 50 years. So many, many free gifts have been exchanged in that time. Even money has probably changed hands between them at some time during their association.
Is a disclaimer required on her site? Because if so, then this is a win for the mega corporations. If I can't recommend my friend's service, then only massive corporations will get any advertising at all.
The insidious problem is not straightforward payment for sham reviews. It is analogous to the old-fashioned phenomena of magazines about cars or local magazines with restaurant reviews. Their source of income is advertising from automobile manufacturers and local restaurants. They may not be accepting payment in return for favorable notices, but their coverage happens to be favorable. The publishers know that if it ceases to be favorable, their revenue dries up. If a publication contains advertising, we know, I hope, that the content is inevitably influenced by it.
The influence can simply lead to stories not being covered. Has NPR's heavy, and daily growing, corporate advertising caused them to decide not to cover stories embarrassing to their corporate patrons? I don't know, but it would seem inevitable that editorial decisions will eventually be influenced by the dependence on corporate cash.
This problem immediately transferred itself to the web, and is not touched by the new FTC rules. The publisher of Tinderbox (a commercial knowledge management program for the Macintosh), for example, can come right out and offer advertising in return for reviews, with the unsubtle implication that those reviews should be favorable, but he's not offering to pay directly for the coverage, so this does not run afoul of the regulations. The reason that this is more insidious than straight out cash for sham reviews is that the latter, I think, are easier to spot. When someone is praising a product or service and receiving, or hoping to receive, the benefit of advertising, the writer may not even be aware of the influence.
There are two ways for these SF "headridge of the week" shows to proceed:
1. Your ship goes around from star to star
2. You bring the aliens by you on a choke point.
Most Star Trek is the former, and DSN the latter.
Stargate was a hybrid. Now this is fully #1? What was the "problem" with the Stargate method that needed fixing -- by making it exactly like every other SF show. And, specifically, apparently a clone of Voyager?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm the guy that modded many of your comments in this story down. It looks as though you are trolling. You've written at least a half a dozen rabidly anti-government, anti-regulation screeds in this story. I'm sick and fucking tired of a few libertarian types with loud voices attempting to convince everyone that the government is evil and everything it does is wrong and bad. Government and laws exist to protect the weak and powerless from oppression at the hands of the sociopathic and powerful. I modded you troll because you are an apologist for unrestricted tyranny of the rich and powerful over all other interests. You don't want regulation because you know it is a way for the powerless to stand up against the powerful, and in your mind, the powerless are powerless because they should be and the powerful have power because they deserve it. In your mind, anything that moves society away from this natural state of affairs where the powerful oppress the powerless is evil and unnatural, So, LOTS of troll mods for you today, buddy.
Troll hunter OUT.
I offer the following icons to assist (the idea of icons, an artist can make em):
($$$) Paid Review - Indicating that the reviewer was directly paid
(MR) Loaned Product - Indicates the review was loaned a unit that is returned to the manufacturer.
(M=>R) Gifted Product - Indicates the reviewer was given a unit for the purpose of review.
(M$=>R) Discounted Product - The reviewer was sold a unit at a discount knowing it was to be reviewed.
(DA) Direct Affiliate - An agent of the manufacturer or in their employ (Ad agency under contact for instance. A gaming magazine that the manufacturer buys advertising space from)
(IA) Indirect Affiliate - An agent of a company that has no direct relationshiup with the manufacture. (A New Egg employee would be an indirect affiliate of NVIDIA for example.)
(OoO) Clean - This reviewer was not compensated in any way shape or form. The product reviewed was purchased at full retail price from a retail vendor and the reviewer is not an affiliate. In short: none of the above.
These icons are to be presented under the review or article byline sized to the same height as the byline and space warranting may be presented on the same line as the byline.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Any gifts were obviously personal and the businesses were not involved (though they are sole proprietorships so that's fuzzy already). But how will it play out? Well I guess we're going to find out how the law works in practice because I can tell you right now my wife will neither remove the link, nor post a disclaimer.
Good luck with that, FTC! I pity the agent who has to deal with her over this issue. It'll be the most painful 11 grand ever collected.
Finally! Now CmdrTaco and his ilk at Slashdot will be forced to disclose how they pay Bill Gates and the Execs at Microsoft thousands of dollars to interview them... (as if their mockery convinces us that they're not secretly bankrolling them!)
http://www.beanleafpress.com
My only wish is the penalty for someone not disclosing he is a paid corporate shill should be de-balling.
As laughable as the rest of this post is, (very much so, FCC =/= FTC, plus have you seen what Obama wants to do with the FCC?) this part is maybe unintentionally insightful.
Back in the day, the penalty for lying used to be "they'd cut your balls off." This is why back in antiquity, women wouldn't be allowed to testify in court. It's also why "testify" and "testicle" have the same root word.
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
There must already be legal definitions of compensation in the US otherwise income tax would be trivially easy to avoid. "What salary? This was a 'gift' from the company." It's true that laws can lag company practices by a few years - as was the case with company cars in the UK - but they inevitably catch up. In fact when tax money is involved it is amazing how rapid governments can move.
Let's cut to the net net (Just reading Raymond Chens blog, and I decided to get with the Microsoft speak). I am not in the US. I do not post in the US. My English is excellent, and I am able to either compose my own "reviews", or would be willing to simply post your reviews.
My rates are reasonable, and I am willing to work under aliases.
Contact me via email for your astroturfing and viral marketing needs. Payment accepted in US Currency, Euros, Canadian Currency, or (if I can actually be convinced that the product doesn't blow), product.
==
In other words, WTF are you thinking? All that will happen is that the astroturf business will "offshored". Next, the buying of these services has to be made illegal, but that will take years (actually, I predict never), but when/if that happens, the astroturf campaigns will simply be managed in an offshored basis as well.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
However for political and social commentary, what do I get from reading a web log written from the point of view of my own biases? Someone to tell me what I already believe so I can respond with how insightful the poster is?
What do you get? You get to be like the vast majority of people. We (often unconsciously) seek out those that are similar to us as a way of validating ourselves. If others are like us, we must be pretty good people. If (smart|rich|famous|powerful) people think the same way we do, we must then be more valuable. Feeding our self-image leads to some pretty potent biases.
And while you certainly deserve kudos for seeking out those with conflicting opinions in order to challenge your world views, it is still highly likely you're seeking out those like you. (You're on Slashdot, for goodness sakes.) Most of your friends are likely of similar age, marital status, education, and ethnicity. They have similar interests to you.
Trying to overcome these biases can be a good thing. Just don't think you've beaten them.
Because you're being paranoid and delusional.
The FTC was totally out to lunch during the Bush years, especially on false advertising. Looks like they're back.
A few more things they have to catch up on:
I need yet another reason to hate the world...
I'm guessing you got modded troll because you said "We have a White House that can't even stand the idea of people criticizing the president without getting reported to flag@whitehouse.gov". The purpose of that email was not because Obama couldn't stand being criticized. It was because republicans were blatently lying about health care in order to obstruct passing a health care bill. If all they are doing was criticizing him, I don't think Obama could have cared less. It was the trolling they were looking to be kept up on. Granted, I too have issues with the way they went about the process, but for you to say it was because he was being criticized...well, I too would mod you troll if you hadn't asked for an explanation.
I want to read from that other 20% where people are talking about rattling, quirks, and bad experiences.
Those 80% are usually from Joe Sixpack applauding the number of cup holders and the glovebox, or couldn't tell a quality DLP tv from a 10-year-old analog projector TV.
On the other hand, the 20% can be from competitors, and many times are from chronic complainers. There's just as much noise in negative reviews, and it can be hard to tell what is really a problem or one guy with a bad experience that is not generally repeated.
Looking around the internet for complaints does not seem like it would reveal a wealth of productive data.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is fraud not already illegal?
If someone is paid to say "This I-pod rocks!", or someone else is not paid to, but says it anyway, what is the difference? Both reviews are entirely devoid of information. If anyone uses either case to help them decide on what portable audio player to buy, then shame on them for their lack of critical thinking. Unless of course you already know the reviewer to be trustworthy and you accept his opinion as to what is simply good to apply for you.
If someone is paid by Apple Incorporated to say that "This I-pod can play Vorbis-encoded audio files", when it does not, then is that not just plain fraud? So it seems you can trust paid-for reviews even more for what really matters -- the facts -- because they have a disincentive to lie: Being charged with fraud. Someone who has no monetary involvement could just make up whatever lies they want. Why they would want to, I do not know, but trolls do abound.
Sorry, from my experience they still reveal more than the glowing endorsements.
See, we're not mindless bots. If Joe Random said "Game X is teh sux" or "Car Y is teh gay", it doesn't mean I'll take it as gospel. For a start, I will look into what his complaint is.
E.g., if it's as trivial as the complaints about the view angles on widescreen monitors in Bioshock, that's actually a good sign. People usually get to noticing that kind of details if there aren't more glaring faults to pan. That goes for astroturfing competition reviews too. If the product had more glaring problems, they'd latch on to those.
E.g., what he disliked, maybe I like, so it's actually factored in as "good" in my final decision. E.g., if someone were to pan a game for being turn-based and thus sooo 1990's, heck, I like turn based games. I'll buy it.
And other stuff is just information, again, to be judged and weighted by my own criteria.
But that's just the important part: it's information. Which all of those sites writing only the glowing endorsement parts, left out. They're only telling me half the story.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...we just require professional sites to follow these rules? That would kill two birds with one stone--it would weed out potentially false reviews, and it would help bring professional journalism into the digital age. If you want to be a professional site, you have to follow the rules to maintain your license. If you don't want to be a professional site, then you can say whatever you want; but those who are looking for a review and want some level of professionalism might be less likely to listen to you.
Now, Slashdot itself might decide to register as a professional site even though its users posting comments aren't professionals. That's fine. A professional site can have user-generated content, as long as it's easily distinguishable from professional content, and on Slashdot that's easy. The main story at the top would have to follow professional guidelines. User comments like this one wouldn't.
There, FTC. Fixed that for you.
Now I'm going to have a cup of Pete's coffee. It really is very good.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's not only about having the same bias, but sometimes also about evaluating the same criteria at all.
E.g., I've seen TFT monitor and TV reviews which didn't even go deeper than "ooh, this one looks glossier than that other one. Teh shiny is soo pretty! Kawaaaaiii!" Not an exact wording, but that was the general idea. At the end of the review I knew which looks prettier, and had a good idea of how good do the brushed aluminum buttons look against the shiny plastic frame. But I was left completely unenlightened about such "details" as latency or contrast.
I like to check behardware, for example, for monitor reviews because they actually measure ghosting and display lag with a fast camera, and provide comparisons on those criteria. It's not a case of same bias (sometimes my pick would be different than theirs), but that's genuinely information which 90% of the other sites don't provide at all.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Anytime a law comes in that forces them be be honest they'll seek a way round it to continue shafting people.
Sounds just like government. However whereas businesses don't have firearms to enforce what they want government does.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
perspective, I might actually learn something (I know--scary thought).
It is scary, therefore many don't like reading something that contradicts their beliefs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So, all those gaming mags and their companion websites, as well as other sites, will start taking it on the chin.
"Here at (blahgamers!) we consider (newgameX) to be absolutely killer! The graphics were uber, the gameplay awesome, and the chicks had almost nothing on!*"
*The above review was compensated for by (producers of newgameX) with a free lifetime subscription to (newgameX), a cool $5K, and dates with each of the kiosk girls we used at the last game convention. Condoms not included.
"And the Democrats were, themselves, blatantly lying about Health Care." As Abbot and Costello might chime in together at this point, "Third base!"
Hint: It's about the government tracking people. You fight the battle on unsavory things like "Well, my side is doing it, so it's ok," lest it get to places that actually matter. Oh, and in the mentioned case, it does matter.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...and to sum it up, Windows is a wonderful, easy to use producy and I would... oh dam.. just read the article..er..nevermind
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Font size = 1.
font color = background color.
Or animated gif showing 200 word message for three seconds.
That etymology is very questionable. See http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-swe1.htm http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010214
It's not the free copies of books/movies/whatever that are troubling (to me). It's the strong correlation between positive reviews and lucrative advertising contracts on some sites that I find deceptive. That's the part that should be disclosed.
I don't think regulating reviews, which is what this is, will solve anything. A freer market can though, if a blogger posts a review that's bad then it readers will learn not to trust the blogger. And by bad I mean a review that is not truthful.
For those who believe regulations do solve problems take a look at Bernie Madoff. SEC investigators advised he be investigated under existing regulations but was he? No. Before Madoff was Charles Ponzi, arrested in 1910. Between Ponzi and Madoff was Iva Kreuger who shot himself in 1932 after his global empire came crashing down in scandal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It is not the role of government to protect you from failure to exercise good judgement, or from the consequences of acting without it.
Political parties and politicians are reviewers of the policies they advocate. They will lie and twist the truth to sell their policies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This could easily spell doom for independent blogs. I run a review blog. I receive tons of samples. My sample policy is always that I don't give you a good score for giving me a sample, but I will let you know when I post the review - IF I post a review.
Companies are willing to take this risk because any coverage is good coverage for them and all it cost them was a bottle.
These new rules state that if I were to review a product for, say, Logitech and not disclose that I was reviewing a provided sample, the Federal Government could fine BOTH me AND Logitech $11K. Now, with that potential liability, what's in it for Logitech to send me that sample to review? Now they're risking a five figure fine from the government every time they send a sample to a blogger that isn't affiliated with some large media organization that can guarantee compliance. Even if I intend to comply with this rule, Logitech's best interest is to avoid me and my ilk like the plague - further marginalizing independent media and favoring the print media.
Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
Back in the day, the penalty for lying used to be "they'd cut your balls off." This is why back in antiquity, women wouldn't be allowed to testify in court.
... they were probably busy castrating ye olde bloggers and corporate scum.
FCC = FTC They're both in the federal government, and they are equally culpable for any restrictions on individual liberty that comes out of that hot mess.
I am in the online marketing industry and have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I think it's very good because it will create more transparency which keeps the public from getting screwed. Believe me, there is A LOT of deception in this field, and it's always the consumer that takes the hit. As a practice though, I believe it's more valuable to the company to make sure the blogger is being completely honest about the product, and this decision would promote that - or at least let consumers know that they are dealing with a biased opinion.
On the other hand, I wonder if this is an infringement on our constitutional rights. Take publications for example. I'm in the home theater industry - when we want a review in a publication of any sort, it is expected that we are going to advertise with that company. I've even had publications hold our product review hostage until we signed a year-long ad agreement. Everyone does this. Everyone. And you better believe that it effects what is written in the review. There's no way a publication is going to bash a product, even if it is completely deserved, if a year-long ad agreement is at stake.
My point is that practically everything is biased for a myriad of reasons - don't even get me started on the News - but the question is, by cracking down on this system, are we restricting our Freedom of Speech?
I wish this would cover product reviews, such as those on amazon.com. It's really frustrating; some of them are so obviously bogus.
From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.
Corporations should not be allowed to lobby. Special interest groups are usually formed by citizens. The National Audubon Society is a special interest group. So is the AMA, Consumers Union, and the Shriners.
I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of)
I shouldn't be allowed to make a campaign donation to a candidate I support? You'd make all those millions of dollars Obama and Ron Paul raised illegal? So only those who are independently wealthy can run for a political office? Does political speech mean nothing them? Who then pays for campaigns? Taxpayers? I certainly don't want any money I work to earn to go to either Hillary or McCain so they can be elected. I'd rather be able to willingly donate to those I support.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Nnnno.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
he basically just made a few of his personal opinions anonymously on usenet. Nothing that could ever drag stock prices down.
Overblown? I don't know. If what was said was his opinion that's one thing but if he lied that's something else. And it is possible to drive stock prices up or down based merely on public opinion. In a rational market public opinion wouldn't affect stock prices but we do not have a rational market. Frequently investors see a rise or drop in stock prices when earning are higher or lower in a report than was forecast.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If you read a product review, you need to know if it came from an independent source, of if it's some weasel's idea of "guerrilla marketing".
Yea, I learned that years ago. Well relearned it, and I'll probably relearn it again. I have some personal examples from more than 10 years ago. Two were when I was choosing computers and another the monitor. I wanted a computer I could use as a server and another that was a laptop. The PC I choice as the server was a DEC Alpha powered Windows NT4 PC and the laptop was a Gateway. With the Alpha I bought all the market speak about the FX!32 emulator, how it could run almost all software that ran on Windows NT4. Well I was only able to install one software on it I bought. I was able to install a number of freeware/shareware programs though. Later I learned they meant 32bit not 16bit software. For the laptop I went with Gateway because I only read good things about the company, and Gateway had just bought the rights to the Amiga, I thought Gateway would revive it and Amigas were my favorite computers. Well they never did anything with the Amiga, and I had too many problems with the laptop. In the first year alone both the hard disk and motherboard had to be replaced. Because I wanted space for design I wanted a large monitor, and again hearing good things about Nokia monitors I bought a 21" monitor. Unfortunately it didn't display colours accurately. Even after I spend money to ship in it for repair, it still had a bluish-green cast no matter how I adjusted the colours.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?