On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 15:50 -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: > >From <http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.html>: > > > [Federal Register: August 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 149)] > [Proposed Rules] > [Page 44878-44879] ... snip ... Submitted the following "question" at http://www.copyright.gov/help/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should the copyright office propose to require the use of a product from a company that US and European governments have litigated against for monopolistic and unfair business practices when superior, more robust, secure, free, and more standards-compliant alternatives are available? http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.html Please do not require the use of this inferior product of a monopolistic company for preregistration of copyright claims. Alternatives include web browsers from: http://www.mozilla.org/ http://www.opera.com/ Reviews of browsers: http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/starthere/browserreview.html http://www.singingwolf.com.au/news-stories/browser-news/ http://www.stopie.com/alternatives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anybody else got an opinion for them? Phil
