Sunday, October 30, 2005

How many times should you pay for software?

I have touched on this subject before. But only on the context of just the fact they are asking too much for their software, and I don't feel they have a right to tell me how long I can use the product.  I believe it is wrong for the software to expire a year later.  Expiring even three years later is wrong.  This does more than force them to upgrade.  It also forces them to upgrade a computer that they may not have the money to fork out cash on.  Computers for many family's are a gift. Or a blessing just to own.  They can't run out and keep purchasing this software over and over again. 
 It was President Bush that said he wanted every home to have a computer, and be wired to the internet.  That may be what he wants.  But if the software industry don't come down out of the clouds and stop their damn fleecing the consumer I don't see computers being something that every family will be able to afford in the future.  We will have the software industry to thank for it too. 
If you own like seven software programs and they all expire within a year, a person could be dishing out well over $600.00 just for the software.  Just to have the right to use it.  Now the upgrades of the software may cause the computer itself to not be compatible with the software so it will have to be upgraded as well.  So by the time you upgrade the computer and the software your dishing out well in excess of what some family's are even dishing out for their autos every year for insurance, and even maintenance.  It's maybe even more than what some are dishing out for their home owners insurance.  Don't forget this will be a every month ordeal for some, or an every other month ordeal for some.  Plus the prices of the software is going up too.   The software industry is killing us.  That is why I said in the past a line has to be drawn, and the software industry has to follow it.  Because eventually people will leave Windows and go for Linux because of the greed in the Windows software market.  That will really Piss Billy off.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Tamiflu Supply

I can't help to think of how many people will look like idiots if the Tamiflu does nothing for the mutated bird flu that is expected to hit this world of ours.  Chances are of Tamiflu being a waste of money are high.  If you must buy this, then please do so.  But don't think for one minute you will be anymore protected against the bird flu than those that don't buy Tamiflu.  What will help you against this mutated bird flu is isolation, cleanliness, (hand-hygiene)  and perseverance in taking care of your self and your family.  But tamiflu is not the cure for it because this flu has not mutated as of yet and the CDC doesn't have that clear picture on what the mutation looks like.  Using Tamiflu would or could be no different than taking a glass of water and a sugar pill.  Your odds are not that good either that Tamiflu will even work. 

Curbing Spam

I am so sick of who is responsible for the spammers these days. It's very clear to me who is. It's the ones paying the spammers. No one in the Internet community has said a word about making the ones that pay the spammers responsible for the spam. It's like the Internet community has put these businesses on ignore. They know who is doing the spamming. Plus they can curb it if they really wanted too. Make the ones paying the spammers responsible for the spam in our in-boxes, and webmail. This is what will help to reduce the spam.

I have set up a poll for this.  I wanted to see if anyone agrees or not.  Go here and vote yes or no.  The poll is to your right on this page:

Conspiracy Theories Poll



Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Catholic School Principal To Students: Thou Shalt Not Blog

Well I thought I heard it all, but apparently not.  This does make you wonder why such a strict rule against blogging?  Could it be the school is afraid that a student could blog one of their dirty little secrets?  I don't agree with MTV on one part of this news article though.  Just because a student goes to a private school does not mean their rights are void.  If their rights were void then prisoners would not have the right to sue for such violations.  Even though their school is private, doesn't mean they are any less of a American.  MTV should of gotten down right dirty with this story, and got to the heart of the matter of what really is going on.  On a personal note once my child hits the front door from school other than homework and activities related to sports at school etc, school is on the back burner.  The principal, the school, or any one affiliated with it doesn't run my household, neither do they pay my bills so they can butt out.  They are truly taking matters too far.  MTV was too nice to them in that article.  See link below.

Friday, October 21, 2005


I am all for the nofollow.  I guess some people feel it necessary to spam every blog they can.  But my philosophy is if you are spamming my blog then you really must be hard up for hits to your website.  So I make it a point not to even click on the links supplied in my blogs comments section.  I also tell people never to click on these links because you never know what is on their pages.  You might be selling something, and you could be downloading something else onto my computer behind my back. Or you could be advertising one thing, and selling a entirely different item on the website.    I tell all visitors to my blogs:
Please don't click on any links in the comments section of my blog.  You never know what could be lurking at these websites.  So for your protection, dont visit these websites. 
Here is Googles info on this subject:

Thursday, October 13, 2005

EU says internet could fall apart

I believe that the USA will hold out to the last breath being stubborn jerks they will not give in.  I don't see them giving up the internet pie they have had all of this time.   Regardless of what the UN or EU think the USA Government loves domination.  USA looses power if they give up ownership.  At the same time too allow a country to take over a majority of the internet would be just like accepting a Internet that doesn't allow free speech anymore.  Dictatorship would be  universal. Some countries would force rules on the internet that would or could hurt the internet.  It all starts with whom has the power to  govern the internet.  it  will end when the consumer gives up logging onto the internet stating that the internet is not worth all of the trouble logging on to it anymore.  That will be a bad shame that will hang on all governments shoulders.   The consumer will no longer have all of the information available to them.  Maybe we need to line up all these  bureaucrats and just whoop all their asses for being such jerks? 
 Who ever runs it needs to be neutral.  They can not be for or against any one nation on this planet.  Everyone should have access to it equally, and no one nation should be allowed to dictate it. 


Developing countries demand share of control 
US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform
 A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control.

The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.

Read the rest here: EU says internet could fall apart

Saturday, October 08, 2005

sorry it's not for sale used

I don't get it.  I can go to a thrift store and buy tapes and cds that are used.  I can buy a used car, and purchase used furniture.  I can go to a yardsale and purchase stereo equipment, and take it home and have my neighbor give me a few cds they don't want anymore.  I can do all of this legally. 
But you can't do this with computer software.  
 The first-sale doctrine is an exception to copyright codified in the US Copyright Act, section 109. The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold.

The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords (recorded music) and computer software, although private non-profit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items provided they include a notice that the work may be copyrighted on the copy.

US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own. This however is conflicting with both section 117 and 109, and the case law itself is conflicting depending on which circuit the case was heard in.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

What is spyware?

Ok Gurus here is your chance to shine.  It seems as though the Government can't come to a good conclusion on just what spyware is.  They feel if they label it a certain way then certain Apps will be caught in the rut of the definition of it.  While other spyware will end up free as a bird to do as they please.  So the laws they are trying to make to protect the public could backfire on many software vendors, as well as the public. 
Yes I have two cents worth of my own buzz on this.  But after considerable thought on the subject.  I found my self having doubts on my own definition on it.  I could see between the lines on how anyone could come along and misconstrue the definition just to "get even" with a company they felt had done them wrong in one way or another. Possibly even trying to get rich off of them.  Maybe even getting upset because the APP wanted a email addy and a name.  Plus if you look at many of the APPs today quite a few would be engulfed into being called spyware because of how they install.  One of those that come into mind is "America's Army".  Several other games have protection built in to keep the person whom is cheating, or trying to cheat from cheating.  They could be hit hard by such a law. 
So what is spyware? 
I consider it any APP/software that installs a program capable of collecting data of the user not related in no way to the original software for the purpose of gathering info on the user(s) or the computer to commit illegal financial gain with the information collected on the user(s).  Like gathering the social security numbers, birthdays, maiden names, snail mail addresses, tax information, keystrokes, timed pictures of the desktop, websites visited etc. I will also include that the spyware can or could be used to sell information on the data collected from a user(s).  You have to include the selling of information, because many people have been hit hard by individuals collecting data to sell. And because if you don't then many software vendors could turn a blind eye to what a piggy back software is doing along with their software. Not to forget how the selling of data has affected many businesses. The catch phrase of "gee I didn't know" could be used, and would be very hard to prove in court.  You would also have to add that it is the responsibility of the software vendor to be sure that a piggy back software is not illegal. The same goes for any business.  You have to know how the info if it was collected could be used against a client.   
If it is a software program that helps with editing graphics then they have no business what so ever needing any personal information on the user.  Game software only needs to know what you have installed in the main folder of the game.  They don't need to know what you have installed in your "My Documents" folder.  The same goes for any other APP you have installed on your computer.  As far as business is concerned, they must be forced to protect the clients personal data.  Sorry folks but in the past most business used a half ass means of protecting data collected on their clients.  They wont clean up their act so someone needs to lend them a helping had, tell them how it is, and force them too.   
I also have to make it a point to say that their should also be a clause in the law to stop piggy back software period.  Because even now the software vendors have developed a way around letting you know that the piggy back software is there.  They bury it in the EULA.  The EULA is always a mile long and somewhere in that rubbish is a small note stating they have a piggy back software also included with their APP.  The law they have now only states they have to let you know that the software is there what it does etc.  So they do in a small as way as possible so not to disturb the reader trying to find the bottom of a damn EULA that goes on forever saying how you have no rights to own their software, and how their asses are protected from you.   
I realize this has nothing to do with spyware but I am almost to the point of not installing software unless they have a small EULA with just the facts instead of rambling on like they do.  Hell, I am not out to marry the software I just want to use it.  Enough already, let me get on with the install.  Perhaps even EULA standards should be in place for all software vendors to follow?
What ever the case what is your legal definition for what spyware is?

RFID Conspiracy

While a good majority of Americans sit at home with their posh surroundings. A few companies have developed a way to track your every move.  It's called RFID chips.  While most will brush this off and claim a majority of people are trying to blow this out of proportion.  I just want to remind those idiots there is no law on the books to protect the public against this new technology.  It has the makings of being the publics worst enemy.  Not only could it track you while you are trying to plan that surprise birthday party for your significant other, it could also cause you to loose a job, open a can of worms with family and associates.  Yup folks your boss could have a legal way to ride your butt on that nine to five job you have. 
If that isn't bad enough for you to take notice of this new technology then maybe this is....
Your Government will have a way to monitor your every move 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Nothing you do will be private.  So if you like to get up and have a stiff drink before going to work.  They will know about it.  If you have a legal case against someone, they will be able to track you and use that information against you in court.  Even if you did nothing wrong.  "The means of making mountains out of mole hills is upon us."  We wont have a life anymore because Uncle Sam and his Assistants will be monitoring us.  So will businesses.  If they don't like what they see they could question you.  You could end up in far more legal battles.  The word "privacy" will be in the history books.  But it wont be a part of our day to day living. 
But it doesn't stop here...
Stalkers could have a better way to stalk the public.  Paparazzi could have a better way to go after the famous.  The means of you hiding the fact that your mom or dad, or even your significant other has a medical condition that you have hid for years will be made public.  
Some one could walk into your home and actually take a audit of your personal belongings.  Years from now they could even try to pass a mandatory scan before your hired for a job.  They could even claim they found something in your home that doesn't meet their standards.     Even if you bought something and never used it.  The act of owning it could keep you from being hired. 
Could this technology help us?  It could if it was used to help find a child that was maybe kidnapped.  It could if your neighbors have no children but they buy children's things in order to entice them into their home to exploit them.  It could if someone bought a poison to kill mom because she's sitting on a few million and wont share.  So good buy mom hello money.  They could have the means to track down who bought the poison.  Or even a gun.  Maybe even the bullets. 
No it wont be used for just the security aspects and purchasing of the products for long. It will be a matter of just a few years before someone gets the bright idea they can snoop into your home too.  If our Government has their way you wont be able to breath without them knowing about it.  Unless something is done now privacy will be a old and ancient word in our vocabulary.  The public will be treated as dumb asses that didin't even know what was comming till it was too late. 
I thought they wanted those barcodes in order to track orders?  So why do they need RFID too? 
Read this:   Spychips Sees an RFID Conspiracy      I advise everyone to get that book too.  

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud



Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.

Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.

Ms. Andersen made the following allegations, among others:

1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. As part of this campaign, these record companies retained MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous “John Does.”

2. The anonymous “John Doe” lawsuits are filed for the sole purpose of information farming and specifically to harvest personal internet protocol addresses from internet service providers.

3. After an individual’s personal information is harvested, it is given to the record companies’ representatives and the anonymous “John Doe” information farming suits are then typically dismissed.

4. The record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in prohibited and deceptive debt collection activities and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits. Most of the people subjected to these secret suits do not learn that they have been “sued” until demand is made for payment by the record companies’ lawyers or Settlement Support Center.....

5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.

6. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or distributed music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted interest.....

7. Ms. Andersen has, however, been the victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign. The threats started when the record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had been an “unnamed” defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint.

8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being “sued” when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....

9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies’ “representative,” which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.

10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies’ agents, MediaSentry.

11. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had “been viewed” by MediaSentry downloading “gangster rap” music at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used the login name “” Ms. Andersen does not like “gangster rap,” does not recognize the name “gotenkito,” is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

12. Settlement Support Center threatened that if Ms. Andersen did not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive and disruptive federal lawsuit using her actual name and they would get a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

13. Ms. Andersen explained to Settlement Support Center that she had never downloaded music, she had no interest in “gangster rap,” and that she had no idea who “gotenkito” was.

14. Ms. Andersen wrote Settlement Support Center and even asked it to inspect her computer to prove that the claims made against her were false.

15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

16. Instead of investigating, the record company plaintiffs filed suit this against Ms. Andersen. F. The Record Companies have no Proof of Infringement.

17. Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims.

18. No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred. Regardless, the record companies actively continued their coercive and deceptive debt collection actions against her. Ms. Andersen was falsely, recklessly, shamefully, and publicly accused of illegal activities in which she was never involved.

Ms. Andersen further alleged:

20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen’s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen’s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....

Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.

26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.

27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersen’s computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.

28. According to the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....

31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersen’s personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (“IPA”)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersen’s private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.

32. The record companies’ agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs’ claims and public relations campaign.

33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....

36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....

40. The record companies knowingly represented materially false information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her.

41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersen’s IPA had been “viewed” downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....

49. Despite having never observed any downloading or distribution associated with Ms. Andersen’s personal home computer and despite refusing Ms. Andersen’s offer to allow an inspection of her own computer, the record companies wrongfully continued their improper debt collection activities against her.....

50. The record companies pursued debt collection activities for the inappropriate purpose of illegally threatening Ms. Andersen and many thousands of others. This tortious abuse was motivated by and was a central part of a public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

51. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit the debt collection activity against her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

52. The record companies were aware of Ms. Andersen’s disabilities and her serious health issues. Settlement Support Center knew that its conduct would cause extreme distress in Ms. Andersen. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Ms. Andersen suffered severe physical and emotional distress and health problems.

53. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages, including harm to Ms. Andersen’s health and property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial......

55. Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits those in trade or commerce from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the course of business with consumers. ORS 646.605 et seq.

56. The record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, is a company doing business in Washington which was established to engage in debt collection activities in manystates, including Washington and Oregon.

57. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent made false and deceptive statements to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to mislead, threaten, and coerce her into paying thousands of dollars.

58. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent has made similar false and deceptive statements to many other residents of Washington and Oregon, and across the country. The public interest has been and continues to be directly impacted by plaintiffs’ deceptive practices.

59. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages and harm to Ms. Andersen and her property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial. ....

61. The Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act prohibits companies from engaging in organized racketeering or criminal activities. ORS 166.715 et seq.

62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersen’s downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.

63. The record companies directed its agents to unlawfully break into private computers and engage in extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct.

64. The record companies and their agents stood to financially benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts. Proceeds from these activities are used to fund the operation of the record companies’ continued public threat campaigns.

65. These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record companies have repeated these unlawful and deceptive actions with many other victims throughout the United States.

Answer and counterclaim.

Ms. Andersen is represented by:
Lory R. Lybeck
Lybeck Murphy, LLP
500 Island Corporate Center
7525 SE 24 Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040-2336
(206) 230-4255