In Katz's defense (or maybe Fincher's) The CG was very well transposed/combined with the real set. Oh sure, you knew you were watching CG, but only because you knew that there was no other way they could show you what you saw.
Did Katz even watch this movie? (maybe spoilers)
on
Review: Panic Room
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The thieves know there's money hidden away. They enter the house thinking it's still vacant. But the movie never explains why they don't just leave and come back another time once they found out there are people inside.
Actually, it does. Robber A explains to Robber B that Robber C will keep an eye on Mom and The Kid while they get the stuff out of the panic room. It was a minor plot point; maybe Katz went to the WC?
It seems that the room is highly vulnerable to being disabled (Whitaker is a "panic room" designer);
Um, that's "panic room installer." The difference is that the designer would probably make more money and have less incentive to steal...
the super-secret phone doesn't work,
That's a major plot point. Go wacth the movie again. And no safe room would fail to have a Net connection (this one doesn't); a working cell phone or some secure means of communicating with the outside world. Like, say a silent alarm?
Didn't you mention this before? Did you pay the same attention to earlier parts of your review as you did the movie? Mr Katz, this is a major plot point in the movie and is well explained. Besides, if the phone did work, how long would this movie have been? 30 minutes?
Barring any of those things, how about an old-fashioned weapon.
Why? The phone is supposed to work. But since it doesn't we have what we call a "movie"
but this isn't a social science lecture, it's a thriller. It ought to make some sense, and this movie doesn't and that gets in the way.
If you wonder how they eat and breathe and other science facts, then repeat to yourself "It's just a show. I should really just relax."
Re:Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case?
on
EFF Takes Bnetd Case
·
· Score: 1
That road you built, well, it doesn't check to make sure that all cars travelling on it are NOT stolen.
Good thing that road I built isn't covered by the DMCA.:)
Of course the EFF will argue neither is bnetd... and if it isn't I'm thinking that claims that this will test the DMCA won't hold true.
Re:Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case?
on
EFF Takes Bnetd Case
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you forgot to think before you phrased the last question.
Wouldn't be the first time:)
Computers facilitate the use of pirated software.
My point was bnetd facilitates the use of pirated Blizzard software as it does no CD key validation. Blizzard is not attempting to prevent piracy on all PCs, they are protecting their IP.
But I ask -- whose responsibility is it to ensure that the players are using a legitimate copy of the game? Should that be done at the network level, by the open-source game server, or at the client / cpu level, by the software that should have actually been paid for?
It should be the gamers responsibility to ensure that they are not using pirated software:). Their software *does* check for CD keys. This is a method by which they use to prevent piracy. bnetd circumvents this check allowing pirated copies to exist.
Look at it this way -- does HP have a responsibility to ensure that all users sending print jobs to its printers are doing so with properly licensed installations of Microsoft Office? 'cause that's about what the people here are asking for.
Not really. AFAIK, MS have software that does printing that authenicates that you are using non-pirated copies of office. This would be the same situation if MS had created a print server of some kind that checks registration, and HP had released an emulated version of that server that had allowed pirated copies of office to use it. This situation does not occur because MS does not use this sort of process to validate office (maybe XP and OfficeXP?)
They came up with a lousy copy protection / validation scheme. Too bad for them.
It's too bad that they have to deal with pirates using their software on bnetd. If Blizzard wins this based on the DMCA, it'd be too bad for bnetd that they created a product that violated the law.
Re:Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case?
on
EFF Takes Bnetd Case
·
· Score: 1
The defendant was forced to reverse engineer that product in order to offer the desired services.
Forced? No one forced anyone to do anything...
The only remaining question is whether Blizzard applied for a patant for their network protocols. (unlikely.)
You forgot the question: "Does bnetd facilitate the use of pirated software?"
Kind of like the people who think that they can/can't hear with glassess on/off? Tell me, when you talk to someone in person, do you put their ear in your mouth?:)
Seriously, it's understandable why the asthetics of a phone (or any such device) would lead to use that was not intended by the designer. As long as there is a demand for phones that have mics close to the mouth, someone will make 'em.
Maybe because copyrights are not patents. Assuming that "copyright law was created to encourage science and progress", you could see how monetary compensation for copyrights is one method of encouragement. Copyright holders have the right to such compensation under the law. It doesn't have to be fair to the licensee, either in restrictions or the cost of the license. However, those that use licenses have the right not to use them. It ends up being an individual choice.
Because of the ease digital media lends to circumvention of copyright of items stored in that mediusm, IMO it's understandable that copyright holders may want to attempt to restrict the casual (or die hard) violator. Accesses to these items are not being denied, but more closely ristricted to the origninal copyright licensee. As long as this ristriction does not prevent your use of the product (under the license) they are fulfilling their obligations to you.
That WOULD give a tremendous advantage to Debian, except for the nature of open source... some creative programmers wrote an apt for rpm files. So now you can do everything a Debian user can do with an rpm-based distribution.
Not entirely true. Debian has a strict packaging policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/) that I find lacking in RPM-based distros. Apt is just a front-end. It's the policy that allows the front-end to work the way it should
While I see your point 2 and 3 are different. There is a large difference between breaking copy protection illegally (a la DMCA) to play a out of region DVD and Modding a system to accept out of country games which I believe is still legal. My understanding is that the reason the american ps1 could not play japanese games was due to hardware incompatabilities and not a region coded lockout. Which should make importing a japanese game legal while a japanese movie would be illegal.
IANAL
There is a difference between the two, but one of the points the article makes is that they are both illegal (in whatever country this ruling was made.) If you had read the article, you would have seen that using copyrited PS2 games out of region was copyright infringement as it placed a portion of the game in memory (copying.) Since this went against what was permitted in the EULA, it was illegal. Wheather or not there was a hardware conflit in the PS1, the case could be made that it too was also a copyrite violation.
I think he assumed that those using the PPV service would not attempt to break the law. You are only allowed to watch it once. That's what the PER in pay PER view would seem to indicate.
SARCASM>
Surely, you are not talking about copyright laws. No, of course not. They protect individual freedom to be compensated for ones work.
/SARCASM>
I may be wrong since I haven't had @Home for a while but isn't there a line in their TOS that says that you can't run servers -- including or specifically business servers on @Home's residential cable modem service. I assume that the @Work (or whatever they call it) would not have this same upload limitation.
I would check your TOS again. They can't be held liable for "handicapping [your] ability to run a business" if you are breaking their TOS.
I just got called from comcast today to inform me of the @home -> comcastonline switch over. In my mad rush to find out if I'd retain my static IP, I learned that comacast@work won't even let you run a webserver... sheesh.
Didn't Nintedo have (or still has) their multi-game arcade machine? You know, the one where you put so many quarters (or ugh, tokens) for a set amount of seconds. Then you could play what ever game you wanted on the machine for as long as the seconds lasted. I believe Capcom also tried their hand at a 3 in one game systme (was it called "3 Wonder"?) but it didn't go very far...
Slashdot Mirror
In Katz's defense (or maybe Fincher's) The CG was very well transposed/combined with the real set. Oh sure, you knew you were watching CG, but only because you knew that there was no other way they could show you what you saw.
The thieves know there's money hidden away. They enter the house thinking it's still vacant. But the movie never explains why they don't just leave and come back another time once they found out there are people inside.
Actually, it does. Robber A explains to Robber B that Robber C will keep an eye on Mom and The Kid while they get the stuff out of the panic room. It was a minor plot point; maybe Katz went to the WC?
It seems that the room is highly vulnerable to being disabled (Whitaker is a "panic room" designer);
Um, that's "panic room installer." The difference is that the designer would probably make more money and have less incentive to steal...
the super-secret phone doesn't work,
That's a major plot point. Go wacth the movie again.
And no safe room would fail to have a Net connection (this one doesn't); a working cell phone or some secure means of communicating with the outside world. Like, say a silent alarm?
Didn't you mention this before? Did you pay the same attention to earlier parts of your review as you did the movie? Mr Katz, this is a major plot point in the movie and is well explained. Besides, if the phone did work, how long would this movie have been? 30 minutes?
Barring any of those things, how about an old-fashioned weapon.
Why? The phone is supposed to work. But since it doesn't we have what we call a "movie"
but this isn't a social science lecture, it's a thriller. It ought to make some sense, and this movie doesn't and that gets in the way.
If you wonder how they eat and breathe and other science facts, then repeat to yourself "It's just a show. I should really just relax."
You would think that the game would be shorter because it was harder. Forcing you to put more quarters in frequently.
http://www.new.net/about_us_mission.tp
That road you built, well, it doesn't check to make sure that all cars travelling on it are NOT stolen.
:)
Good thing that road I built isn't covered by the DMCA.
Of course the EFF will argue neither is bnetd... and if it isn't I'm thinking that claims that this will test the DMCA won't hold true.
Perhaps you forgot to think before you phrased the last question.
Wouldn't be the first time :)
Computers facilitate the use of pirated software.
My point was bnetd facilitates the use of pirated Blizzard software as it does no CD key validation. Blizzard is not attempting to prevent piracy on all PCs, they are protecting their IP.
But I ask -- whose responsibility is it to ensure that the players are using a legitimate copy of the game? Should that be done at the network level, by the open-source game server, or at the client / cpu level, by the software that should have actually been paid for?
It should be the gamers responsibility to ensure that they are not using pirated software :). Their software *does* check for CD keys. This is a method by which they use to prevent piracy. bnetd circumvents this check allowing pirated copies to exist.
Look at it this way -- does HP have a responsibility to ensure that all users sending print jobs to its printers are doing so with properly licensed installations of Microsoft Office? 'cause that's about what the people here are asking for.
Not really. AFAIK, MS have software that does printing that authenicates that you are using non-pirated copies of office. This would be the same situation if MS had created a print server of some kind that checks registration, and HP had released an emulated version of that server that had allowed pirated copies of office to use it. This situation does not occur because MS does not use this sort of process to validate office (maybe XP and OfficeXP?)
They came up with a lousy copy protection / validation scheme. Too bad for them.
It's too bad that they have to deal with pirates using their software on bnetd. If Blizzard wins this based on the DMCA, it'd be too bad for bnetd that they created a product that violated the law.
The defendant was forced to reverse engineer that product in order to offer the desired services.
Forced? No one forced anyone to do anything...
The only remaining question is whether Blizzard applied for a patant for their network protocols. (unlikely.)
You forgot the question: "Does bnetd facilitate the use of pirated software?"
Kind of like the people who think that they can/can't hear with glassess on/off? Tell me, when you talk to someone in person, do you put their ear in your mouth? :)
Seriously, it's understandable why the asthetics of a phone (or any such device) would lead to use that was not intended by the designer. As long as there is a demand for phones that have mics close to the mouth, someone will make 'em.
If it's successfully argued that the only extra value of these CDs is copyright circumvention, should these CD be sold for less?
Maybe because copyrights are not patents. Assuming that "copyright law was created to encourage science and progress", you could see how monetary compensation for copyrights is one method of encouragement. Copyright holders have the right to such compensation under the law. It doesn't have to be fair to the licensee, either in restrictions or the cost of the license. However, those that use licenses have the right not to use them. It ends up being an individual choice.
Because of the ease digital media lends to circumvention of copyright of items stored in that mediusm, IMO it's understandable that copyright holders may want to attempt to restrict the casual (or die hard) violator. Accesses to these items are not being denied, but more closely ristricted to the origninal copyright licensee. As long as this ristriction does not prevent your use of the product (under the license) they are fulfilling their obligations to you.
Moderating a post to -1 isn't suppressing it? What would you have us call it then? Hiding it?
Uhhh moderators, this appears to be sarcasm, not flamebait...
I would like to propose a new moderation value of "Non sequitur"
*Sheesh*
Just consider that a core dump... :)
Movies on computers pretending to be games? Wing Commander III?
Not entirely true. Debian has a strict packaging policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/) that I find lacking in RPM-based distros. Apt is just a front-end. It's the policy that allows the front-end to work the way it should
They still do. It's the OS on their A-Series enterprise servers.
IANAL
There is a difference between the two, but one of the points the article makes is that they are both illegal (in whatever country this ruling was made.) If you had read the article, you would have seen that using copyrited PS2 games out of region was copyright infringement as it placed a portion of the game in memory (copying.) Since this went against what was permitted in the EULA, it was illegal. Wheather or not there was a hardware conflit in the PS1, the case could be made that it too was also a copyrite violation.
I think he assumed that those using the PPV service would not attempt to break the law. You are only allowed to watch it once. That's what the PER in pay PER view would seem to indicate.
SARCASM>
Surely, you are not talking about copyright laws. No, of course not. They protect individual freedom to be compensated for ones work.
/SARCASM>
Go play Doom, then go play UT. If you cannot tell the difference, the FPS games are *not* for you.
I just got called from comcast today to inform me of the @home -> comcastonline switch over. In my mad rush to find out if I'd retain my static IP, I learned that comacast@work won't even let you run a webserver... sheesh.
If you had actually played games *other than* the ones on your Atari, you may have heard of them. :)
Didn't Nintedo have (or still has) their multi-game arcade machine? You know, the one where you put so many quarters (or ugh, tokens) for a set amount of seconds. Then you could play what ever game you wanted on the machine for as long as the seconds lasted. I believe Capcom also tried their hand at a 3 in one game systme (was it called "3 Wonder"?) but it didn't go very far...