In the short run, maybe, but in the long run google cannot succeed if the advertiser is constantly being hurt.
I suspect that the proportion of fraudulent clicks used to hurt antoher company (by raising their advertising costs) is small compared to the number of scammers trying to make money by hosting google ads.
I dunno, the article suggests otherwise. And the reasoning, as given by other slashdotters, makes sense. The fraudulent clicks aren't so much about raising the other company's advertising costs, but about running them out of advertising money so that your ads go to the top.
I don't know the proportion of revenue google makes onsite vs. ads hosted on other site, but it would seem off-site ads may have to be stopped until a better business model can be figured out.
I really think this is a much simpler problem to solve. Sure, you can use anonymous proxies and you can use lots of IP addresses and you can come up with all kinds of schemes, but once this gets discovered (and it's bound to happen if more than a tiny percentage of the clicks are fraudulent), you can just cancel the contract. When it's a matter of competitors though you don't know which competitor is making the fraudulent clicks, so you don't know whose contract to cancel.
A company can easily determine how many click-throughs from Google eventually lead to sales, and thus assign a dollar value to their presence in Google.
I don't see how you can predict whether or not one of your competitors is going to click on your ad 10,000 times. Even if you could, you'd come up with a value which is way too low to be worth it to bother putting up the ad in the first place. If left unregulated, you're forced into an arms race on which advertiser can write the best ad-clicking bot. The money you spend on the ad-clicking bot takes away from the money you can spend on advertising, until eventually you've got no money to advertise on google (although long before then you will have switched to a differrent advertiser). This is why google is so concerned about this, and why the CFO is saying that it potentially threatens google's very business model.
Depends on your jurisdiction. For example, section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code prohibits businesses from engaging in "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising."
Yep, that was probably the first really rediculous case. Of course, there are a couple that I find even more riduclous. Daniel v. Paul - "the Court ruled that the government could regulate an entire 232 acre (0.9 km) recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state."
I tend to agree with you, but I'm not that big on buying software in the first place. In almost every case you can either find a free version or find a copy somewhere (read pirate one). In my opinion software should be free, so I'm not as disturbed by the laws trying to enforce copyright as by the copyright laws themselves.
The problem with that is that some people, like myself, live an hour and a half from the next state over.
I live nearly three hours from the next state over, I don't see how that's relevant.
It is a great inconvienience to go to the next state to pick up some stupid game, though the alternative is also inconvienient...
So don't buy the stupid game in the first place. If no one wants to sell you a product on terms which are acceptable to you, you don't let yourself get ripped off, you just don't buy the product. It's not like computer games are a necessity. You can live a perfectly normal life without buying any software at all. I can count on one hand the number of times I've bought software, and in each of those cases it still wasn't anywhere near a necessity.
You choose to buy software from someone you don't trust, you take your chances. I won't cry for you if you got ripped off.
In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS
I'd be interested in seeing such a reference in the UCC. Of course not all US states use the UCC, but it'd still be interesting.
Well, since you apparently can't use google for implied merchantability US law and click on the first link, I have dont that for you
None of the links you've provided say anything about not being able to sell a new product AS IS. In fact, this link specifically says "unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty"
You may want to look at Wikipedia for some of the actual Supreme Court rulings (Katzenbach v. McClung, Daniel v. Paul). As for the muhummad case, searching google for "John Muhammad interstate commerce traffic" gives me this link among others. I'm not sure whether or not a court actually bought the argument, but historical precedent seems to me to suggest that it would.
While looking up the answer to your question I did run into this, though. In US v Maxwell the 11th circuit appeals court decided that the federal government couldn't charge a man with possession of child pornography based on the fact that "because the Zip disks and floppy disks on which the incriminating evidence was found were either shipped or mailed to Florida, the defendant's possession of those disks substantially affected interstate commerce." That this even made it to the 11th circuit court of appeals though suggests that there is a pretty inclusive definition of interstate commerce.
Re:Followed by virus-through-firewall applications
on
P2P Through Firewalls
·
· Score: 1
If P2P through firewalls is deployed, viruses through firewalls can't be far behind.
There's nothing in a firewall which stops viruses. At least, there's nothing in most firewalls to stop any virus, and there's nothing in any firewall to stop most viruses.
This technology is more about allowing P2P through NAT, anyway, and doesn't really have much to do with firewalls (except that many firewalls implement NAT). It requires both ends to be actively cooperating, so there really isn't much of a security issue.
In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS
I'd be interested in seeing such a reference in the UCC. Of course not all US states use the UCC, but it'd still be interesting.
If it doesn't work as designed, you have the right(implied) to fold spindle or mutilate it such that it becomes functional, alternatively you can seek redress and your money back.
On the other hand, "the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy." Once you've opened the box and run the software you've either read or should have read the terms and conditions. I'd support your right to return the software in a reasonable time after that (of course, apparently some states have laws precluding the return of opened software, in which case all software is effectively sold as is, and you should have known better).
I mean, if I sell you a car, and you come into my house and steal my laptop, I don't get to take back my car and laptop and keep the money.
More like if you sell me a car with an ignition which can be deactivated remotely, and inside the car is a notice saying that my ignition will be deactivated if I steal from you, but if I don't agree I can return the car for a refund, and then I drive the car anyway, and then I come into your house and steal your laptop, can you press the button to deactivate my ignition? I'd say yes.
I looked at my box a million times and never saw the words Steam under requirements.
Was the software sold with a warranty, or was it sold AS-IS? Because if it's sold AS-IS, and it stops working, for any reason, you don't have any right to complain. If it was sold with a warranty, then I suppose you could sue to return the software, but that would require that you return it in a timely manner, which would be as soon as you opened the box and saw the terms and conditions.
No, I purchased (gave money for) a CD that included the game on it. I was not informed of any other conditions on the usage of that piece of pressed plastic until after the sale was over, and I was no longer permitted to refuse the agreement.
I don't understand your problem then. Did someone take away your piece of pressed plastic? You still have the CD, right? So what's stopping you from using it as a coaster? Your account was disabled, perhaps, but the piece of plastic is still yours.
As I understand congress has no constitutional authority to regulate things like broadcast flags, or TiVOs except through the power of the commerce clause.
That really depends on the details of the regulation.
Unless you actually have historical precident which suggests the courts have interpreted this clause not only to give congress the power to create copyright but also regulate any technology allowing infringment this is simply a silly objection.
I'm not sure you'll find this, because the commerce clause, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, is pretty much a superset of the Copyright Clause.
By their argument, as long as you only sniff the wire that's near their computer or that doesn't cross state lines then you don't need a wiretap warrant.
And who would the "they" be in this situation? This ruling has nothing to do with wiretaps.
Federal laws only extend to "interstate commerce," which these days is interpreted to mean "interstate anything."
Actually it's usually interpreted to mean anything which can be tied into interstate commerce by some ridiculous stretch of the imagination. Federal prosecutors charged John Muhummad based on the fact that his murders caused traffic jams which in turn affected interstate commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, you're getting ripped off?
I find it hard to believe they can't give me unlimited calling for the $35/month I'm paying.
Ads on google.com only hurt the advertiser
In the short run, maybe, but in the long run google cannot succeed if the advertiser is constantly being hurt.
I suspect that the proportion of fraudulent clicks used to hurt antoher company (by raising their advertising costs) is small compared to the number of scammers trying to make money by hosting google ads.
I dunno, the article suggests otherwise. And the reasoning, as given by other slashdotters, makes sense. The fraudulent clicks aren't so much about raising the other company's advertising costs, but about running them out of advertising money so that your ads go to the top.
I don't know the proportion of revenue google makes onsite vs. ads hosted on other site, but it would seem off-site ads may have to be stopped until a better business model can be figured out.
I really think this is a much simpler problem to solve. Sure, you can use anonymous proxies and you can use lots of IP addresses and you can come up with all kinds of schemes, but once this gets discovered (and it's bound to happen if more than a tiny percentage of the clicks are fraudulent), you can just cancel the contract. When it's a matter of competitors though you don't know which competitor is making the fraudulent clicks, so you don't know whose contract to cancel.
A company can easily determine how many click-throughs from Google eventually lead to sales, and thus assign a dollar value to their presence in Google.
I don't see how you can predict whether or not one of your competitors is going to click on your ad 10,000 times. Even if you could, you'd come up with a value which is way too low to be worth it to bother putting up the ad in the first place. If left unregulated, you're forced into an arms race on which advertiser can write the best ad-clicking bot. The money you spend on the ad-clicking bot takes away from the money you can spend on advertising, until eventually you've got no money to advertise on google (although long before then you will have switched to a differrent advertiser). This is why google is so concerned about this, and why the CFO is saying that it potentially threatens google's very business model.
Unethical, but why illegal?
Depends on your jurisdiction. For example, section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code prohibits businesses from engaging in "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising."
They already have a law that says that competition has to be fair.
I knew I was doing a good thing for society by clicking on all those Bush ads. Too bad enough other people didn't do the same.
making a custom USB power connection for it
Hook it up to a wireless USB adaptor and you'll have wireless power!
What if you forget you PIN? The bank gets to keep the money?
It may not have all the same protections, but commercial speech is certainly protected under the first amendment.
Yep, that was probably the first really rediculous case. Of course, there are a couple that I find even more riduclous. Daniel v. Paul - "the Court ruled that the government could regulate an entire 232 acre (0.9 km) recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state."
I tend to agree with you, but I'm not that big on buying software in the first place. In almost every case you can either find a free version or find a copy somewhere (read pirate one). In my opinion software should be free, so I'm not as disturbed by the laws trying to enforce copyright as by the copyright laws themselves.
The problem with that is that some people, like myself, live an hour and a half from the next state over.
I live nearly three hours from the next state over, I don't see how that's relevant.
It is a great inconvienience to go to the next state to pick up some stupid game, though the alternative is also inconvienient...
So don't buy the stupid game in the first place. If no one wants to sell you a product on terms which are acceptable to you, you don't let yourself get ripped off, you just don't buy the product. It's not like computer games are a necessity. You can live a perfectly normal life without buying any software at all. I can count on one hand the number of times I've bought software, and in each of those cases it still wasn't anywhere near a necessity.
You choose to buy software from someone you don't trust, you take your chances. I won't cry for you if you got ripped off.
In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS
I'd be interested in seeing such a reference in the UCC. Of course not all US states use the UCC, but it'd still be interesting.
Well, since you apparently can't use google for implied merchantability US law and click on the first link, I have dont that for you
None of the links you've provided say anything about not being able to sell a new product AS IS. In fact, this link specifically says "unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty"
You may want to look at Wikipedia for some of the actual Supreme Court rulings (Katzenbach v. McClung, Daniel v. Paul). As for the muhummad case, searching google for "John Muhammad interstate commerce traffic" gives me this link among others. I'm not sure whether or not a court actually bought the argument, but historical precedent seems to me to suggest that it would.
While looking up the answer to your question I did run into this, though. In US v Maxwell the 11th circuit appeals court decided that the federal government couldn't charge a man with possession of child pornography based on the fact that "because the Zip disks and floppy disks on which the incriminating evidence was found were either shipped or mailed to Florida, the defendant's possession of those disks substantially affected interstate commerce." That this even made it to the 11th circuit court of appeals though suggests that there is a pretty inclusive definition of interstate commerce.
If P2P through firewalls is deployed, viruses through firewalls can't be far behind.
There's nothing in a firewall which stops viruses. At least, there's nothing in most firewalls to stop any virus, and there's nothing in any firewall to stop most viruses.
This technology is more about allowing P2P through NAT, anyway, and doesn't really have much to do with firewalls (except that many firewalls implement NAT). It requires both ends to be actively cooperating, so there really isn't much of a security issue.
In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS
I'd be interested in seeing such a reference in the UCC. Of course not all US states use the UCC, but it'd still be interesting.
If it doesn't work as designed, you have the right(implied) to fold spindle or mutilate it such that it becomes functional, alternatively you can seek redress and your money back.
On the other hand, "the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy." Once you've opened the box and run the software you've either read or should have read the terms and conditions. I'd support your right to return the software in a reasonable time after that (of course, apparently some states have laws precluding the return of opened software, in which case all software is effectively sold as is, and you should have known better).
One exception to this rule that I know of opened software cannot be returned in Minnesota under any circumstances.
I'd never buy software in Minnesota, then. It's a stupid law, but most slashdotters can't say they didn't know about it. Caveat emptor.
I mean, if I sell you a car, and you come into my house and steal my laptop, I don't get to take back my car and laptop and keep the money.
More like if you sell me a car with an ignition which can be deactivated remotely, and inside the car is a notice saying that my ignition will be deactivated if I steal from you, but if I don't agree I can return the car for a refund, and then I drive the car anyway, and then I come into your house and steal your laptop, can you press the button to deactivate my ignition? I'd say yes.
I looked at my box a million times and never saw the words Steam under requirements.
Was the software sold with a warranty, or was it sold AS-IS? Because if it's sold AS-IS, and it stops working, for any reason, you don't have any right to complain. If it was sold with a warranty, then I suppose you could sue to return the software, but that would require that you return it in a timely manner, which would be as soon as you opened the box and saw the terms and conditions.
No, I purchased (gave money for) a CD that included the game on it. I was not informed of any other conditions on the usage of that piece of pressed plastic until after the sale was over, and I was no longer permitted to refuse the agreement.
I don't understand your problem then. Did someone take away your piece of pressed plastic? You still have the CD, right? So what's stopping you from using it as a coaster? Your account was disabled, perhaps, but the piece of plastic is still yours.
As I understand congress has no constitutional authority to regulate things like broadcast flags, or TiVOs except through the power of the commerce clause.
That really depends on the details of the regulation.
Unless you actually have historical precident which suggests the courts have interpreted this clause not only to give congress the power to create copyright but also regulate any technology allowing infringment this is simply a silly objection.
I'm not sure you'll find this, because the commerce clause, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, is pretty much a superset of the Copyright Clause.
By their argument, as long as you only sniff the wire that's near their computer or that doesn't cross state lines then you don't need a wiretap warrant.
And who would the "they" be in this situation? This ruling has nothing to do with wiretaps.
Federal laws only extend to "interstate commerce," which these days is interpreted to mean "interstate anything."
Actually it's usually interpreted to mean anything which can be tied into interstate commerce by some ridiculous stretch of the imagination. Federal prosecutors charged John Muhummad based on the fact that his murders caused traffic jams which in turn affected interstate commerce.
I just let Google Desktop sort it for me. Sorry for those of you who don't have Windows. Maybe Google will come out with a Linux version someday.