Are they still including spyware and profiting from that and just changing a few strings? Why have the secrecy with where they got the original code from? The small font on the bottom of the main page and the download page makes it seem that they want to hide something. They would miss out on their spyware being installed if the people who were going to download or have download their program to found out.
As for the current download.com's removal of ratings and comments only decreases my already low trust of reviews on download sites. Now it seems more evident that if you are the author/spyware writer/company and do not agree with the review/accusations/etc, or you get too many bad reviews, the site runners will "fix" things in your favor. Does anyone know if Download.com responded to those of you that contacted them about the GPL violation?
I just "love" how the comment section on the positive side on just about ever review site contains at least the standard, "I^Hthe author did not steal this, quit making false accusations, the program r0cks, there is no spyware, and send me a email to this address which either a junk mail account where I will promptly ignore it, or someone I want flamed," or something similar.
Oh well, looking at is now trolls seem to have joined been feeding the positive comment section. They seem to now be overtaking the scarcastic postivite comments. I never really trusted reviews from download sites anyway. I remember how the AD-Aware reviews were filled with FUD from spyware/adware/etc authors who felt threatened. The best thing about reviews is that are great for warnings.
I have the feeling that the RIAA could have done this to themselves so that they could drum up support for their bill and what ever they try to pass. What better way to gain simpathy and support then to DOS or give the impression that you where DOSed? While I think the RIAA was immature with their comments and actions, a DOS gives off the impression that P2P users are really immature.
With a break comming up for each house, and a even longer back up in paperwork that goes through them, I can see why the MPAA are taking this to the FCC. I can understand why they feel that they need to go to the head of the FCC, the MPAA feels they are not making any progress, going through routes like congress is very risky, the public is begining to catch on to this, the deadline for the HDTV switch is coming up "very soon", and know they will be SOL if they do not get their standard backed, supported and implimented soon.
I would not be supprised if they are doing this to avoid any questinging and oppositions that they might accure if they tried going through congress. What better way to get what you want with out having to go through those costly and damaging route when you can just go to the top? Of course there is the chance that this could back fire on them.
This is a really risky move on their part, in doing so they are drawing even more attention to themselfs, and this has a good probability that this can back fire on them. If they fail they can make matters worse, not only could they have the FCC against them, they can have the opposition from other government officals and government agencys. This can be very costly if they fail and have to go through congress.
Is there a audio recording of this meeting? I am sure a lot of use would like to hear it. I would like to find out if those representing use were or were not as disruptive as the writer claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they still including spyware and profiting from that and just changing a few strings? Why have the secrecy with where they got the original code from? The small font on the bottom of the main page and the download page makes it seem that they want to hide something. They would miss out on their spyware being installed if the people who were going to download or have download their program to found out.
As for the current download.com's removal of ratings and comments only decreases my already low trust of reviews on download sites. Now it seems more evident that if you are the author/spyware writer/company and do not agree with the review/accusations/etc, or you get too many bad reviews, the site runners will "fix" things in your favor. Does anyone know if Download.com responded to those of you that contacted them about the GPL violation?
I just "love" how the comment section on the positive side on just about ever review site contains at least the standard, "I^Hthe author did not steal this, quit making false accusations, the program r0cks, there is no spyware, and send me a email to this address which either a junk mail account where I will promptly ignore it, or someone I want flamed," or something similar.
Oh well, looking at is now trolls seem to have joined been feeding the positive comment section. They seem to now be overtaking the scarcastic postivite comments. I never really trusted reviews from download sites anyway. I remember how the AD-Aware reviews were filled with FUD from spyware/adware/etc authors who felt threatened. The best thing about reviews is that are great for warnings.
I have the feeling that the RIAA could have done this to themselves so that they could drum up support for their bill and what ever they try to pass. What better way to gain simpathy and support then to DOS or give the impression that you where DOSed? While I think the RIAA was immature with their comments and actions, a DOS gives off the impression that P2P users are really immature.
With a break comming up for each house, and a even longer back up in paperwork that goes through them, I can see why the MPAA are taking this to the FCC. I can understand why they feel that they need to go to the head of the FCC, the MPAA feels they are not making any progress, going through routes like congress is very risky, the public is begining to catch on to this, the deadline for the HDTV switch is coming up "very soon", and know they will be SOL if they do not get their standard backed, supported and implimented soon.
I would not be supprised if they are doing this to avoid any questinging and oppositions that they might accure if they tried going through congress. What better way to get what you want with out having to go through those costly and damaging route when you can just go to the top? Of course there is the chance that this could back fire on them.
This is a really risky move on their part, in doing so they are drawing even more attention to themselfs, and this has a good probability that this can back fire on them. If they fail they can make matters worse, not only could they have the FCC against them, they can have the opposition from other government officals and government agencys. This can be very costly if they fail and have to go through congress.
Is there a audio recording of this meeting? I am sure a lot of use would like to hear it. I would like to find out if those representing use were or were not as disruptive as the writer claims.