The first illegality is trademark infringement. The defendant, in many cases, used registered trademarks of companies in order to bombard people who attempted to visit a web site related to a product that they owned or were considering the purchase of. He had already lost 200 such sites through court cases.
The next illegality is the use of malicious code to bombard people with pop-up windows when they did things as innocuous as hit the back button. Many people were reduced to restarting their computer to escape from the mess that the defendant created. Exploiting a weakness in a computer, whether to spread a worm or pop up dozens of unwanted windows, is illegal.
It is illegal to display porn to children. That's why porn sites have an "I-am-over-18" button (so I am told). The defendant's web sites had no such protections.
Finally, "typosquatting" is illegal. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act became law in November of 1999 and made it illegal for a person to register or use, with a "bad faith" intent to profit from, an Internet domain name that is "identical or confusingly similar" to the distinctive or famous trademark or Internet domain name of another person or company. No one should know that better than John Zuccarini, against whom the third district court upheld that law in a decision rendered in June of 2001.
On a side note, I spoke to John Zuccarini (the defendant) about a year ago. I tracked down his phone number after being pissed off about being hit by his scam when I typed in a URL in the form of "www.{product name}.com". I informed him that the URL contained a registered trademark. He was a rude asshole and I am just sorry that he's being fined rather than jailed.
I think you mean bit rate, not sampling rate. CD audio is sampled at 44.1KHz
You are absolutely right. I looked at my post about 15 minutes after making it and cringed when I saw my own misuse of terms. Thanks for correcting that error. It's something I should have done when I first recognized it.
By the way, the 48khz sampling rate is most likely from DAT, which went with that slightly higher rate. A 48khz sampling rate can sound better when using high-end audio gear for playback.
So why not offer songs for download at different qualities? Songs that have been compressed down to 512kbps from a 96K samples per second master. Offer a 225kbps and a 128kbps version as well, all compressed so well that the 128kbps sounds like a 192kbps mp3.
I want an uncompressed version. Let me download at CD-quality and I'll be happy to pay for it. But what many MP3 fans call "CD quality" is anything but. If I have an uncompressed version, I can encode it with MP3, OGG, WMA, or any other format the comes along. If I have it encoded at, say, 224k bit rate on MP3 and Format X comes out which performs much better at the same rate, I can reencode it using Format X.
If it is not an issue to run the record companies out of business because they can't keep up with technology, why is it an issue for record stores to be run out of business by the record companies?
In the former case, it's because of consumer demand. In the latter case, it's record companies using unfair business practices to shut down stores that consumers would, by and large, prefer to remain open.
As consumers we do have power, the power of the dollar. Why not use it? I want downloadable CDs for sale, and this crappy song is at least a good start in that direction. Support it!
Downloadable CDs? I would be happy to have 44.1K sampling rate, 16-bit stereo, uncompressed music for download. That's not what they are offering. They are offering an MP3 encoded at a relatively low bit rate. I didn't buy thousands of dollars worth of high-end audio equipment to listen to low-quality MP3s.
You want downloadable, 192K MP3s? Then you support this. I want to keep buying CDs, playing them uncompressed at home, and encoding them at bit rates of my choosing for use in the car or in portable devices. If a better encoder than MP3 comes along, I want to be able to go back to an original CD and re-encode them with the new encoder, not buy them all over again or convert them and lose even more quality. Don't expect my support for this initiative.
I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but why should anyone be concerned about the elimination of an outdated business model?
Because I like going in record stores. I like shopping there. I like the option of buying a CD when I'm on a trip and popping it into my car's CD player. I like getting physical CDs rather than pre-encoded MP3s. I like liner notes, cover art, and cutout bins.
This isn't about an "outdated business model." It's about record companies, who control the distribution of music, cutting out record stores to increase their own profits.
The revolution here is that they're selling individual songs. Imagine if this gets popular.
They did sell individual songs. It did get popular. Ever heard of a "45"?
CDs came out and the record companies used it as an excuse to double prices while eliminating sales of singles. (3" CD singles were stillborn.)
People have a chance to show they approve of a tenative first step, and your first reaction is to bitch and moan about how it's not what YOU want.
I don't approve. It's not what I want. And judging by the moderation my message got, I'm not the only one that feels that way. Hell yes, I'll "bitch and moan" when they try to give me a choice between copy protected CDs or low quality MP3s.
Well shut up
Why? Because I have a different opinion than you? Because I don't think that this is a "good thing"? Is that how you speak to anyone who disagrees with you? My response: Get bent.
The RIAA members are interested in ways to cut out the record stores, media costs, shipping costs, return processing, and every other cost associated with selling CDs.
If they can get people to buy online, they have no cost. MP3.com will eat the cost of the bandwidth in order to get you to view their banner ads. The record companies will have gone to an essentially zero-cost model for distributing their music. Compared to the cost of a CD, printed liner notes, packaging, shipping, and splitting profits with the local record store, it's a lot better for them if you just PayPal them the money.
End result: If you want music, you will get it online compressed at whatever rate the publisher wants to supply it. If you have invested in a high-end audio system, that's tough. You'll take the MP3s at 192K like everyone else.
Embedded GUI systems is an area where Linux can shine. The lack of a consistent UI between general-purpose Linux software packages and the sometimes-problematic configuration and administration is simply not an issue in a dedicated machine like a point-of-sale terminal. I expect Microsoft to lose a lot of sales in that arena.
The beauty of MP3 for me is that I can elect to sample at 224k or 256k for my car CD/MP3 player or I can sample at 128K for my Rio 600. I can encode with LAME or whatever encoder I like best. I can set the options based on file size, encode speed, or sound quality. It's all my choice.
I don't want the record companies to sell me some compromised, one-size-fits-all MP3 of their favorite song off of the album. I want the ability to rip and encode the CDs I own without legislation or copy protection to hinder me. I want the RIAA to recognize that I am a customer with hundreds of CDs and not their enemy. I want them to sell me a CD at a fair price and not cripple it in an attempt to prevent me from making a copy to play in whatever device I want.
You feel free to give them $.99 to sell you an MP3 of a song you don't know by an artist you've never heard of. I'd rather just keep asking my Congressional representatives to sponsor legislation prohibiting copy prevention and guaranteeing consumers the right to copy and format-translate any music or movie that they buy.
I realized that I did not address one of your points, so I'm double-replying:
After all, when you type the fake information in, you know it's fake and you're doing it intentionally, presumably to prevent others from knowing who really owns the domain.
Fraud requires that you take something from the victim, not just trick them.
* Getting $500 from an old woman to replace the "muffler bearings" in her car would be defrauding her.
* Claiming that you own a Ferrari when you actually own a 1974 Gremlin is not fraud.
* Registering the domain "miracle-cancer-cure.com" with false contact info and then tricking cancer victims into paying you $50/pill for what are really Vitamin E tablets would be fraud and would put you in violation of the proposed law.
* Simply registering "spam-free-zone.org" with a false contact information would not put you afoul of the proposed law.
Hope that clears up the meaning of the term "defraud."
The current language allows the courts to interpret "intent to defraud" any way they like.
The word "defraud" is already defined in countless legal cases and dictionaries:
To take something from by fraud
So, unless you are using your domains to trick people into providing you with money, goods, valuables, or services, you're safe.
It is clear to courts, judges, juries, and legislators what is meant by the term "defraud." It cannot be redefined every time a new bill is introduced. Besides, you'd probably just want a definition of each word used in the definition of the word "defraud." What do you mean by "take"? What specific things are meant by "something"? What is your definition of "fraud"? It would be endless.
I am not a wireless expert by any means, so my words of advice will be from a risks perspective.
1. Avoid, at all costs, trying to bring everything up at once. Try bringing up a few users at a time. Roll it out slowly.
2. Manufacturers want to sell equipment. Try to find one that has engineers willing to work with you in designing the network. While manufacturers don't do that for sales of one and two items to Harry Homeowner, they might be a bit more responsive to an apartment development.
3. Limit your liability. You need to get a written contract with the apartment complex. It needs to spell out that you you are not responsible if the network fails to provide adequate bandwidth, security, or reliability.
4. Item three not withstanding, make certain that you can provide adequate bandwidth for the entire unit. Recognize that there will be people who download porn, MP3s, and CD images 24x7.
5. Make sure that the management puts together a rock-solid acceptable use policy. There will almost certainly be residents who will spam and who will set up web pages to sell their miracle herbal viagra. You don't want the entire network to be taken down by the uplink ISP before you even finish deployment.
6. On a similar note, make sure that the management has a realistic plan for providing the bandwidth. If they are intent on putting 500 units on a single T1 or a cable modem, the project is doomed to failure from the start.
7. If the project looks hopeless because the customer is clueless, get payment in advance.
8. Do not purchase ANY hardware with your own funds. Make the customer pay. Don't shell out several grand with the hope that you will be reimbursed.
9. If you make any design decisions based on information provided by the customer, make sure to document that in "as-per-our-conversation-of" e-mails and/or memos.
Some day, I'll have that kind of bandwidth running to my home. And my ISP will still disallow my personal telnet server because of the strain it will put on the network.
Man dressed with toy gun shot on college campus...
on
Augmented Reality Quake
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication.
I am crushed! You know how important your opinion is to me.
I am sure that extending the Internet to the whole world sped the development of the web. But to pretend that we would still be limited to Gopher and FTP had the Internet not been internationalized is simply a denial of reality. Had Tim Berners-Lee not "invented the web", someone else would have.
As to Linux, I used BBSs before the web was available. Collaborative software development worked that way, too.
The US Congress does not have the authority to pass laws that affect people outside of US borders.
And that is yet another reason why it was a terrible mistake to open up the Internet to entities outside of the U.S. Yes, I know how wonderful it is to be bombarded with spam from open relays in Asia. Merchants and consumers alike have had the pleasure of dealing with credit card thieves all over eastern Europe. We have all enjoyed the results of the various VBScript viruses from the Phillipines.
Go ahead and mod this down to "punish me" for expressing such politically incorrect thoughts, but the Internet's extension outside of the U.S. has brought most U.S. users more pain than gain.
Had you, or the editors of Slashdot, actually taken the time to read the bill you would have discovered that it only prohibits falsification of the information with the intent to defraud. The following is the entire text of the bill:
A BILL
To provide criminal penalties for providing false information in registering a domain name on the Internet.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FALSE INFORMATION IN REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1037. Fraudulent information in registering domain name
`(a) OFFENSE- Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
`(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section--
`(1) the term `domain name' means any alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet; and
`(2) the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1034 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1037. Fraudulent information in registering domain name.'.
Next time you hear about a bill in Congress, read the bill before you get your panties in a twist.
I refuse to provide fully accurate information until there are criminal penalties for spamming and junk-mailing registered individuals.
If the law passes, you could refuse to comply as an act of civil disobedience. You could be tried, found guilty, and jailed. But you would be a hero to privacy advocates.
On the other hand, I'd love to be able to phone the jerk who owns www.herbal-viagra.com at 3:00AM to ask why he spammed me. It would be super to be able call the DNS provider for a spammer and have them take down the spammer's web site because he forged the contact information.
That would be the article that requests a cookie to be set, and when declined, redirects you to a page saying cookies must be enabled to read this article.
They want to set a cookie, not install a virus on your system. I simply cannot believe that anyone still has the tell-me-about-each-and-every-cookie option checked. If you are that paranoid, there are programs out there that auto-delete cookies. But you probably would not trust them, either, would you?
Their page. Their article. Their terms. What's so complicated about that?
Rather than going to a traditional sci-fi convention where I would fail to get laid, I can attend an online convention and fail to get cybersex. Computers really have improved my life...
Keep in mind that by pirating the software, you aren't necessarily simply hurting Microsoft, you are also hurting smaller office products, whom the sale may go to instead, due to piracy. This isn't simply hurting the big people we all hate...
I'm not pirating anything and I resent your accusation. I can afford any software that I want and purchase commercial software, shareware, and make donations to "donationware" on an ongoing basis.
As to the hypothetical situation I mentioned, you make a valid point and it's not a simple one to quantify. If an impoverished student is choosing between free software and pirated commercial software, then obviously no one is losing money. If he's deciding between the $75 StarOffice product and a pirated copy of MS Office, it's a different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
The first illegality is trademark infringement. The defendant, in many cases, used registered trademarks of companies in order to bombard people who attempted to visit a web site related to a product that they owned or were considering the purchase of. He had already lost 200 such sites through court cases.
The next illegality is the use of malicious code to bombard people with pop-up windows when they did things as innocuous as hit the back button. Many people were reduced to restarting their computer to escape from the mess that the defendant created. Exploiting a weakness in a computer, whether to spread a worm or pop up dozens of unwanted windows, is illegal.
It is illegal to display porn to children. That's why porn sites have an "I-am-over-18" button (so I am told). The defendant's web sites had no such protections.
Finally, "typosquatting" is illegal. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act became law in November of 1999 and made it illegal for a person to register or use, with a "bad faith" intent to profit from, an Internet domain name that is "identical or confusingly similar" to the distinctive or famous trademark or Internet domain name of another person or company. No one should know that better than John Zuccarini, against whom the third district court upheld that law in a decision rendered in June of 2001.
On a side note, I spoke to John Zuccarini (the defendant) about a year ago. I tracked down his phone number after being pissed off about being hit by his scam when I typed in a URL in the form of "www.{product name}.com". I informed him that the URL contained a registered trademark. He was a rude asshole and I am just sorry that he's being fined rather than jailed.
I think you mean bit rate, not sampling rate. CD audio is sampled at 44.1KHz
You are absolutely right. I looked at my post about 15 minutes after making it and cringed when I saw my own misuse of terms. Thanks for correcting that error. It's something I should have done when I first recognized it.
By the way, the 48khz sampling rate is most likely from DAT, which went with that slightly higher rate. A 48khz sampling rate can sound better when using high-end audio gear for playback.
So why not offer songs for download at different qualities? Songs that have been compressed down to 512kbps from a 96K samples per second master. Offer a 225kbps and a 128kbps version as well, all compressed so well that the 128kbps sounds like a 192kbps mp3.
I want an uncompressed version. Let me download at CD-quality and I'll be happy to pay for it. But what many MP3 fans call "CD quality" is anything but. If I have an uncompressed version, I can encode it with MP3, OGG, WMA, or any other format the comes along. If I have it encoded at, say, 224k bit rate on MP3 and Format X comes out which performs much better at the same rate, I can reencode it using Format X.
Downloading music from the Web (and by implication, not paying for it) doesn't hurt store owners as well as record companies?
While the RIAA would like you to believe that it does, sales of CDs have not generally reflected that belief.
If it is not an issue to run the record companies out of business because they can't keep up with technology, why is it an issue for record stores to be run out of business by the record companies?
In the former case, it's because of consumer demand. In the latter case, it's record companies using unfair business practices to shut down stores that consumers would, by and large, prefer to remain open.
As consumers we do have power, the power of the dollar. Why not use it? I want downloadable CDs for sale, and this crappy song is at least a good start in that direction. Support it!
Downloadable CDs? I would be happy to have 44.1K sampling rate, 16-bit stereo, uncompressed music for download. That's not what they are offering. They are offering an MP3 encoded at a relatively low bit rate. I didn't buy thousands of dollars worth of high-end audio equipment to listen to low-quality MP3s.
You want downloadable, 192K MP3s? Then you support this. I want to keep buying CDs, playing them uncompressed at home, and encoding them at bit rates of my choosing for use in the car or in portable devices. If a better encoder than MP3 comes along, I want to be able to go back to an original CD and re-encode them with the new encoder, not buy them all over again or convert them and lose even more quality. Don't expect my support for this initiative.
I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but why should anyone be concerned about the elimination of an outdated business model?
Because I like going in record stores. I like shopping there. I like the option of buying a CD when I'm on a trip and popping it into my car's CD player. I like getting physical CDs rather than pre-encoded MP3s. I like liner notes, cover art, and cutout bins.
This isn't about an "outdated business model." It's about record companies, who control the distribution of music, cutting out record stores to increase their own profits.
The revolution here is that they're selling individual songs. Imagine if this gets popular.
They did sell individual songs. It did get popular. Ever heard of a "45"?
CDs came out and the record companies used it as an excuse to double prices while eliminating sales of singles. (3" CD singles were stillborn.)
People have a chance to show they approve of a tenative first step, and your first reaction is to bitch and moan about how it's not what YOU want.
I don't approve. It's not what I want. And judging by the moderation my message got, I'm not the only one that feels that way. Hell yes, I'll "bitch and moan" when they try to give me a choice between copy protected CDs or low quality MP3s.
Well shut up
Why? Because I have a different opinion than you? Because I don't think that this is a "good thing"? Is that how you speak to anyone who disagrees with you? My response: Get bent.
The RIAA members are interested in ways to cut out the record stores, media costs, shipping costs, return processing, and every other cost associated with selling CDs.
If they can get people to buy online, they have no cost. MP3.com will eat the cost of the bandwidth in order to get you to view their banner ads. The record companies will have gone to an essentially zero-cost model for distributing their music. Compared to the cost of a CD, printed liner notes, packaging, shipping, and splitting profits with the local record store, it's a lot better for them if you just PayPal them the money.
End result: If you want music, you will get it online compressed at whatever rate the publisher wants to supply it. If you have invested in a high-end audio system, that's tough. You'll take the MP3s at 192K like everyone else.
Embedded GUI systems is an area where Linux can shine. The lack of a consistent UI between general-purpose Linux software packages and the sometimes-problematic configuration and administration is simply not an issue in a dedicated machine like a point-of-sale terminal. I expect Microsoft to lose a lot of sales in that arena.
The beauty of MP3 for me is that I can elect to sample at 224k or 256k for my car CD/MP3 player or I can sample at 128K for my Rio 600. I can encode with LAME or whatever encoder I like best. I can set the options based on file size, encode speed, or sound quality. It's all my choice.
I don't want the record companies to sell me some compromised, one-size-fits-all MP3 of their favorite song off of the album. I want the ability to rip and encode the CDs I own without legislation or copy protection to hinder me. I want the RIAA to recognize that I am a customer with hundreds of CDs and not their enemy. I want them to sell me a CD at a fair price and not cripple it in an attempt to prevent me from making a copy to play in whatever device I want.
You feel free to give them $.99 to sell you an MP3 of a song you don't know by an artist you've never heard of. I'd rather just keep asking my Congressional representatives to sponsor legislation prohibiting copy prevention and guaranteeing consumers the right to copy and format-translate any music or movie that they buy.
I realized that I did not address one of your points, so I'm double-replying:
After all, when you type the fake information in, you know it's fake and you're doing it intentionally, presumably to prevent others from knowing who really owns the domain.
Fraud requires that you take something from the victim, not just trick them.
* Getting $500 from an old woman to replace the "muffler bearings" in her car would be defrauding her.
* Claiming that you own a Ferrari when you actually own a 1974 Gremlin is not fraud.
* Registering the domain "miracle-cancer-cure.com" with false contact info and then tricking cancer victims into paying you $50/pill for what are really Vitamin E tablets would be fraud and would put you in violation of the proposed law.
* Simply registering "spam-free-zone.org" with a false contact information would not put you afoul of the proposed law.
Hope that clears up the meaning of the term "defraud."
The current language allows the courts to interpret "intent to defraud" any way they like.
The word "defraud" is already defined in countless legal cases and dictionaries:
To take something from by fraud
So, unless you are using your domains to trick people into providing you with money, goods, valuables, or services, you're safe.
It is clear to courts, judges, juries, and legislators what is meant by the term "defraud." It cannot be redefined every time a new bill is introduced. Besides, you'd probably just want a definition of each word used in the definition of the word "defraud." What do you mean by "take"? What specific things are meant by "something"? What is your definition of "fraud"? It would be endless.
I am not a wireless expert by any means, so my words of advice will be from a risks perspective.
1. Avoid, at all costs, trying to bring everything up at once. Try bringing up a few users at a time. Roll it out slowly.
2. Manufacturers want to sell equipment. Try to find one that has engineers willing to work with you in designing the network. While manufacturers don't do that for sales of one and two items to Harry Homeowner, they might be a bit more responsive to an apartment development.
3. Limit your liability. You need to get a written contract with the apartment complex. It needs to spell out that you you are not responsible if the network fails to provide adequate bandwidth, security, or reliability.
4. Item three not withstanding, make certain that you can provide adequate bandwidth for the entire unit. Recognize that there will be people who download porn, MP3s, and CD images 24x7.
5. Make sure that the management puts together a rock-solid acceptable use policy. There will almost certainly be residents who will spam and who will set up web pages to sell their miracle herbal viagra. You don't want the entire network to be taken down by the uplink ISP before you even finish deployment.
6. On a similar note, make sure that the management has a realistic plan for providing the bandwidth. If they are intent on putting 500 units on a single T1 or a cable modem, the project is doomed to failure from the start.
7. If the project looks hopeless because the customer is clueless, get payment in advance.
8. Do not purchase ANY hardware with your own funds. Make the customer pay. Don't shell out several grand with the hope that you will be reimbursed.
9. If you make any design decisions based on information provided by the customer, make sure to document that in "as-per-our-conversation-of" e-mails and/or memos.
Good luck.
Dude, I'm eating!!!
Who?
It was an example. Chill out.
Some day, I'll have that kind of bandwidth running to my home. And my ISP will still disallow my personal telnet server because of the strain it will put on the network.
...more on 9 News at 11.
I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication.
I am crushed! You know how important your opinion is to me.
I am sure that extending the Internet to the whole world sped the development of the web. But to pretend that we would still be limited to Gopher and FTP had the Internet not been internationalized is simply a denial of reality. Had Tim Berners-Lee not "invented the web", someone else would have.
As to Linux, I used BBSs before the web was available. Collaborative software development worked that way, too.
The US Congress does not have the authority to pass laws that affect people outside of US borders.
And that is yet another reason why it was a terrible mistake to open up the Internet to entities outside of the U.S. Yes, I know how wonderful it is to be bombarded with spam from open relays in Asia. Merchants and consumers alike have had the pleasure of dealing with credit card thieves all over eastern Europe. We have all enjoyed the results of the various VBScript viruses from the Phillipines.
Go ahead and mod this down to "punish me" for expressing such politically incorrect thoughts, but the Internet's extension outside of the U.S. has brought most U.S. users more pain than gain.
Had you, or the editors of Slashdot, actually taken the time to read the bill you would have discovered that it only prohibits falsification of the information with the intent to defraud. The following is the entire text of the bill:
A BILL
To provide criminal penalties for providing false information in registering a domain name on the Internet.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FALSE INFORMATION IN REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1037. Fraudulent information in registering domain name
`(a) OFFENSE- Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
`(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section--
`(1) the term `domain name' means any alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet; and
`(2) the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1034 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1037. Fraudulent information in registering domain name.'.
Next time you hear about a bill in Congress, read the bill before you get your panties in a twist.
I refuse to provide fully accurate information until there are criminal penalties for spamming and junk-mailing registered individuals.
If the law passes, you could refuse to comply as an act of civil disobedience. You could be tried, found guilty, and jailed. But you would be a hero to privacy advocates.
On the other hand, I'd love to be able to phone the jerk who owns www.herbal-viagra.com at 3:00AM to ask why he spammed me. It would be super to be able call the DNS provider for a spammer and have them take down the spammer's web site because he forged the contact information.
That would be the article that requests a cookie to be set, and when declined, redirects you to a page saying cookies must be enabled to read this article.
They want to set a cookie, not install a virus on your system. I simply cannot believe that anyone still has the tell-me-about-each-and-every-cookie option checked. If you are that paranoid, there are programs out there that auto-delete cookies. But you probably would not trust them, either, would you?
Their page. Their article. Their terms. What's so complicated about that?
Rather than going to a traditional sci-fi convention where I would fail to get laid, I can attend an online convention and fail to get cybersex. Computers really have improved my life...
Keep in mind that by pirating the software, you aren't necessarily simply hurting Microsoft, you are also hurting smaller office products, whom the sale may go to instead, due to piracy. This isn't simply hurting the big people we all hate...
I'm not pirating anything and I resent your accusation. I can afford any software that I want and purchase commercial software, shareware, and make donations to "donationware" on an ongoing basis.
As to the hypothetical situation I mentioned, you make a valid point and it's not a simple one to quantify. If an impoverished student is choosing between free software and pirated commercial software, then obviously no one is losing money. If he's deciding between the $75 StarOffice product and a pirated copy of MS Office, it's a different matter.