A Tour Of A “Pay to Download Firefox” Site

This leads to the fundamental weakness of how governments are perceived of course - even if you make a really great law it has to be a "clear line", so it can't be complicated enough to cover every possibility - which means there will always be some wiggle room for some to take advantage of, and some will be hit by the law that shouldn't be.

As the media deals in anecdotes, even if you really minimise the amount of people in either of these categories by an exceptionally well crafted law, it is still easy for them to generate stories that make the law look too weak, or too draconian (depending on the political preference of the journalist/news organisation) by trotting out whichever handful of cases they dredge up that supports their views.

What does this swing at libertarians have to do with anything else in this thread? No law has been broken, so how would the absence of the rule of law change anything in this case?

Convincing stupid people to make bad deals is immoral but not punishable by law, else most CEO's of banks and phone-companies would be behind bars. And forbidding unequal deals would be the same as forbidding profits.

Also, capitalism without 'a reasonably clear, consistent and fair application of the rule of law', would mean no taxes, no regulations, no law enforcement - just private property and free trade, yes? I too think that there would be a lot of problems with that, especially resolving contract disputes and cases of fraud without resorting to violence.

That said, how and where has that "fact" you present been "painfully and repeatedly demonstrated"?

FTR, I'm not libertarian, but seeing them called fundamentalists with an unsubstantiated argument, in an unrelated thread, annoyed me.

I hope I am not being voted up because people think I'm saying nothing morally problematic is going on. I meant to offer support to the grandparent comment.

There is such a thing as an immoral yet free transaction.

Sort of agree with you - actually, I completely agree with you, just I was originally making a slightly different point.

The point was that this interaction wasn't a feature of "capitalism" - it wasn't a free and honest exchange. The seller here was pretty clearly trying to deceive and cheat people. This happens under all sorts of economic and political systems.

But here's some examples - it wasn't just selling something for more than the market rate. The seller is clearly trying to deceive/misinformative/cheat people. If you look in depth at the screenshots, it wasn't "borderline", it was pretty egregious:

The URLs and advertisements all list free download and don't make it clear that they're not officially with Firefox.

They change and mix up the pricing right next to each other, it's designed to look confusing:

"Get 3 years... only £9.98 per year"

"Get 2 years... only £0.99 per month"

Then there's this doozy:

"Signup now and join the millions of users that download files on the internet"

The order page (second to last image) says on the header, "Download FireFox 3.5 Instantly!" without explaining that the 76 pounds they're charging isn't for Firefox, it's for some membership support something-or-other.

It's like when people put ads for fake things on Craigslist. This particular instance probably isn't criminal, but it's really toeing the line on fraud - I'm pretty sure if anyone was refused their money back and went to small claims, they'd get their money back plus damages.

But again, this isn't a "capitalism" thing. Under theocracy, churches used to take money to help get your dead relatives into heaven faster. People pay large money in Africa and Eastern Europe to be smuggled across borders. Lots of bribery necessary to get things done in corrupt countries, or to have a shot to get into a Communist/Central run business or education system, where it becomes all about who you know instead of the more objective free enterprise exchanges.

Is what's going on here bad? Yes, definitely. Is it "capitalism"? Oh hell no. It's corruption and fraud. Humans sometimes try to cheat each other, again regardless of the economic and political system in place.

Of course the slight problem is that the underlying axioms of capitalism/free marketism is that the only possible consumer is God, as you need to have perfect information about the entire universe so that you can make the correct transactions. When your economic system is based on the idea that omniscience is required of everyone taking part, it is impossible to make statements about how fool proof the system is.

And yet all Software needs to be upgraded before Microsoft stops "supporting" it. In 10 years of using their software in the industry I have never had any actual support from Microsoft.

just because the contract says that doesn't necessarily make it legally enforceable. plenty of contracts disclaim all implied warranties, yet there are plenty of situations in which that disclaimer is not enforceable (and liability is).

It's a sad state when legit businesses get denied yet scammers make it through several "hoops" (getting a certificate/getting a merch account). Try and try again...we worked with RBS world services and they were really helpful in getting things squared away (they even provided sample sites and pointed out where ours was lacking). It's often a very simple thing that flags their "risk management" department (these are the simple things that the scammer in question did correctly).

It is Firefox, though. I can sell a used Ford car and advertise it as such, even though Ford is not my trademark.

"monopolies only happen because of government enforcement." Yes, except when the government breaks 'em up. Trust-busting, anyone? See Standard Oil, or for that matter, the Sherman Antitrust Act. I'm really sick of this hearing this. It's like the unabated capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries never occurred.

You talk as though the government arbitrarily picks which corporate entities will become powerful monopolies and which will fail. Last time I checked, the market--that mystical thing people like you so dutifully worship--renders such judgment. What you perceive should is some kind of government patronage, usually at the level of individual politicians, that allows a monopoly situation to arise in the first place, is actually corporate interests intervening in political life for the purposes of fostering a monopolistic agenda and practice. Look at any political campaign. Where does much of the funding come from? Why do corporate interests fund both parties? Simple, to gain a political foot-in-the-door, so to speak. Hell, look at many government advisorial position. Most are occupied by former (although still share holding) CEOs. And corporate directorial boards? They contain former politicians, many with considerable ties to political figures holding office.

"as far as being blatantly predatory, unless the site actually lies there isn't a problem. if telling half truths is morally wrong then you have some bigger demons to grapple with"

Your cavalier attitude toward this kind of behavior is sickening, at best. If you feel exploitation in any form is justified, then you will have to deal with whatever comes your way, chief.