So they are going to log every single udp packet or tcp session? It's one thing to maintain a list of states for any active connections... It's quite another to try to keep a log of every single one, because as each session ends, the port is recycled, and available for another connection. Take a wild guess how much storage an entire ISP would need to keep track of thir subscriber activities or just one week?
Nope.... not remotely. Which is the whole problem.
Because if BT implements CGN, then the IP that somebody outside ot BT would have for somebody inside of it would actually map to a whole bunch of BT subscribers. BT has no possible way to tell which subscriber utilized the IP because all of them did... possibly even all at exactly the same time, unless BT maps every subscriber to a unique global IP anyways, at which point BT doesn't gain anything by using CGN at all.
With CGN, they can't *POSSIBLY* argue that an IP address somehow is linked with a particular subscriber anymore.
This is going to create a hell of a problem when people inside the CGN start doing stuff they aren't supposed to outside of it, and those people outside can't do anything useful with the IP that they have.
In an ideal world, code is 100% portable, and not a single line of code ever needs to be changed when porting. The reality of software development, however, and especially game development in my experience, is that software deadlines don't generally give the programmers the luxury of testing for every single platform. Producers expectations are nothing more than "make it work", and "make it work on time", without any regard for what might really be under the hood. Writing code that is portable and extensible is just not a luxury that some game programmers are given in the first place. And so when the time comes to even consider a port, the task is quite commonly either infeasible or else a whole lot of time is going to put sunk into it. Even on so-called "portable" platforms like Unity, because a codebase may not be actively developed on all of the platforms simultaneously, machine-dependencies can still creep in... and often in no small number, as programmers are simply compelled to just make do whatever they have to just to get it to work on the platform being tested.
And this blind charging (because that's all a smaller game studios ever seems to have the time to do) turns the effort of porting something that is supposed to be platform independent into one long grievous headache that requires a huge amount of developer time.
And so is it worth it for Linux, accounting for perhaps only 2% of the total desktop computing marketplace?
You may be interested in knowing that both nyan cat and keyboard cat have existed in previous iterations of the Scribblenauts titles at least 2 and 4 years ago, respectively.
So it seems that in this case, yes... the creators *did* fail to defend their trademark against commercial use. None of which would have may have ever happened in the first place had the creators initially made any serious attempt to be more specific about its status before this issue arose. Even if you want to argue that copyrights are implicit, trademarks aren't... and so there's a reasonable expectation on the part of the trademark holder will actually convey the trademarked status of their work when dealing with the public.
The alleged "lateness" is not only pure speculation on your part but also not particularly meaningful even supposing it is true
I suppose so.... that would imply I had just speculated buying those games for my youngest child as well, however... and actually looked them over before posting. Or maybe I just speculated I had children at all. Oh my gosh! What if I'm just speculating that I'm answering you right now?
Both cats have been in previous iterations of Scribblenauts titles (nyan cat since at least 2011, and keyboard cat since at least 2009).
Secondly, both of these creators' claimed trademark status is pending.... and the first time any such mention of such status occurs is in connection with this suit. Their lateness is pursuing this kind of protection so many years after the concepts were public knowledge could well render their prosecution efforts fruitless (at least the lawyers will be happy).
Thirdly, with regards to Keyboard Cat specifically, at least, the person who put the video up on Youtube explicitly gained permission to distribute it and granted permission for anyone else to copy and distribute it. (see wikipedia entry). Note... anyone. That would, by definition, include commercial entities, since they were never explicitly excluded.
Finally, if the prevention of commercial exploitation had ever really been an original goal of the creators, then with the original work, considering that they were deliberately putting it in a place that is known for cat memes, they probably should have stated that all rights on the characters were reserved, and permission to copy and distribute only for noncommercial purposes would be granted without seeking special licensing. Although not strictly legally required, it's an oversight that undoubtedly led to most people being unaware that there was ever any such status on those creations until mention of this lawsuit surfaced.
Of course, had they done that, as I said before... it's unlikely it ever would have become a very popular meme in the first place. People might really like passing along their cat videos, but if they see that there's some sort of catch to it, some may show a little more restraint with distributing it further.
My point was that once something (Aspirin) got perceived of as "common", any official trademark status that Bayer had on it was essentially gone. Although this wasn't necessarily Bayer's fault, per se, the creators of these cat concepts being discussed here deliberately chose to release them into an environment that is explicitly *KNOWN* for adopting memes and running off with them without ever clearly establishing their trademark ownership on the characters to the general public. If most of the public that consumes the idea doesn't even realize that it's trademarked in the first place, why would a company?
I've seen what I'm pretty sure was the original "keyboard cat" video on Youtube. I had no idea it was supposedly trademarked.
But even if you want to suggest that the creators are completely in the right here, then you're also suggesting that to any people who have sponsored youtube channels, that they shouldn't post videos of their housecats doing stuff that you might have seen other housecats do on youtube, because they'll be commercially gaining from something somebody else might have trademarked.
The fact that you chose to respond to me should be some evidence of that, as one could not under any circumstances suggest that I had somehow coerced you into responding.
Nonetheless, even if you believe that everything in the universe is completely deterministic, we still appear to ourselves to make completely free-choices, and any determinism that may be involved in such apparent free choices is well outside of our ability to perceive or measure, and so for our purposes, the choices that we make may as well be considered freely made.
So yes, he had a choice. If you want to be pedantic, he had a choice to the extent that humans can perceive choice in the first place.
I'm only attacking capitalism to the exact same extent that capitalism would create an even larger old hunger problem than what already exists by not trying to fix negative environmental impacts of existing commercial practices
Only when people who are better off aren't willing to share.
Wanting those who might be able to afford to help the less fortunate also starve to death because the world's actually run out of useful food altogether doesn't help.
Read the fine print on any "warranty" before spending any money on it. It's rare that they will actually do everything they imply when they sound too good to be true.
If you have questions, ask them... ask where in the warranty it says anything that you can't find, and if it's not explicitly written there, then get it in writing, and make sure that a manager signs off on it... not just figuratively, but literally.
One of two things will happen... either they will get frustrated and stop trying to sell you the warranty because they will realize that you're not a sucker from your questions, and insistence on personal accountability of any claims, or else you'll actually get the deal you thought you would.
Thanks for telling me that... I'll be sure to tell them at Staples when they try to sell me the EW on something that I'll need to talk to their manager... and then refuse him or her personally. Let's see them cut their own hours.
Probably, but they would have still been the ones responsible for the initial release of the information. If they had wanted to retain control of them, it's arguable that they would not have done so in such an unregulated fashion.
Meh. Everyone has a choice. They can either take responsibility for their actions, or they can be immature and blame other people for them.
100% sure? I doubt that... unless you are saying you are the accused yourself.
Because you see, he's claiming "not guilty", so that would imply he's asserting that he didn't do it. In our society one is innocent until proven guilty, so it makes no sense for anyone other than the accused to be 100% certain of anything in that matter, let alone that he felt he had no choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. They are doing that right now in fact, by not offering the service at all.
So they are going to log every single udp packet or tcp session? It's one thing to maintain a list of states for any active connections... It's quite another to try to keep a log of every single one, because as each session ends, the port is recycled, and available for another connection. Take a wild guess how much storage an entire ISP would need to keep track of thir subscriber activities or just one week?
Except the time isn't known... Unless you can guarantee that the ISP and the destination clocks are synchronized to the second.
There's far more than just piracy as an issue here.
That'd be kinda like prosecuting everybody who had walked into a store in a particular morning for shoplifting when only one item went missing.
Nope.... not remotely. Which is the whole problem.
Because if BT implements CGN, then the IP that somebody outside ot BT would have for somebody inside of it would actually map to a whole bunch of BT subscribers. BT has no possible way to tell which subscriber utilized the IP because all of them did... possibly even all at exactly the same time, unless BT maps every subscriber to a unique global IP anyways, at which point BT doesn't gain anything by using CGN at all.
With CGN, they can't *POSSIBLY* argue that an IP address somehow is linked with a particular subscriber anymore.
This is going to create a hell of a problem when people inside the CGN start doing stuff they aren't supposed to outside of it, and those people outside can't do anything useful with the IP that they have.
Okay.... but what do other game studios think?
In an ideal world, code is 100% portable, and not a single line of code ever needs to be changed when porting. The reality of software development, however, and especially game development in my experience, is that software deadlines don't generally give the programmers the luxury of testing for every single platform. Producers expectations are nothing more than "make it work", and "make it work on time", without any regard for what might really be under the hood. Writing code that is portable and extensible is just not a luxury that some game programmers are given in the first place. And so when the time comes to even consider a port, the task is quite commonly either infeasible or else a whole lot of time is going to put sunk into it. Even on so-called "portable" platforms like Unity, because a codebase may not be actively developed on all of the platforms simultaneously, machine-dependencies can still creep in... and often in no small number, as programmers are simply compelled to just make do whatever they have to just to get it to work on the platform being tested.
And this blind charging (because that's all a smaller game studios ever seems to have the time to do) turns the effort of porting something that is supposed to be platform independent into one long grievous headache that requires a huge amount of developer time.
And so is it worth it for Linux, accounting for perhaps only 2% of the total desktop computing marketplace?
I work for a smaller game studio, and whenever I ask about doing Linux ports, I just get laughed at.
You may be interested in knowing that both nyan cat and keyboard cat have existed in previous iterations of the Scribblenauts titles at least 2 and 4 years ago, respectively.
So it seems that in this case, yes... the creators *did* fail to defend their trademark against commercial use. None of which would have may have ever happened in the first place had the creators initially made any serious attempt to be more specific about its status before this issue arose. Even if you want to argue that copyrights are implicit, trademarks aren't... and so there's a reasonable expectation on the part of the trademark holder will actually convey the trademarked status of their work when dealing with the public.
I suppose so.... that would imply I had just speculated buying those games for my youngest child as well, however... and actually looked them over before posting. Or maybe I just speculated I had children at all. Oh my gosh! What if I'm just speculating that I'm answering you right now?
Then they should have done so quite a while ago.
Previous iterations of Scribblenauts have had nyan cat since at least '11, and keyboard cat since at least '09.
They're late to their own party, and there's a pretty good chance it will cost them protected trademark status.
First of all, no it isn't the first time.
Both cats have been in previous iterations of Scribblenauts titles (nyan cat since at least 2011, and keyboard cat since at least 2009).
Secondly, both of these creators' claimed trademark status is pending.... and the first time any such mention of such status occurs is in connection with this suit. Their lateness is pursuing this kind of protection so many years after the concepts were public knowledge could well render their prosecution efforts fruitless (at least the lawyers will be happy).
Thirdly, with regards to Keyboard Cat specifically, at least, the person who put the video up on Youtube explicitly gained permission to distribute it and granted permission for anyone else to copy and distribute it. (see wikipedia entry). Note... anyone. That would, by definition, include commercial entities, since they were never explicitly excluded.
Finally, if the prevention of commercial exploitation had ever really been an original goal of the creators, then with the original work, considering that they were deliberately putting it in a place that is known for cat memes, they probably should have stated that all rights on the characters were reserved, and permission to copy and distribute only for noncommercial purposes would be granted without seeking special licensing. Although not strictly legally required, it's an oversight that undoubtedly led to most people being unaware that there was ever any such status on those creations until mention of this lawsuit surfaced.
Of course, had they done that, as I said before... it's unlikely it ever would have become a very popular meme in the first place. People might really like passing along their cat videos, but if they see that there's some sort of catch to it, some may show a little more restraint with distributing it further.
My point was that once something (Aspirin) got perceived of as "common", any official trademark status that Bayer had on it was essentially gone. Although this wasn't necessarily Bayer's fault, per se, the creators of these cat concepts being discussed here deliberately chose to release them into an environment that is explicitly *KNOWN* for adopting memes and running off with them without ever clearly establishing their trademark ownership on the characters to the general public. If most of the public that consumes the idea doesn't even realize that it's trademarked in the first place, why would a company?
I've seen what I'm pretty sure was the original "keyboard cat" video on Youtube. I had no idea it was supposedly trademarked.
But even if you want to suggest that the creators are completely in the right here, then you're also suggesting that to any people who have sponsored youtube channels, that they shouldn't post videos of their housecats doing stuff that you might have seen other housecats do on youtube, because they'll be commercially gaining from something somebody else might have trademarked.
I hope you realize how silly that sounds.
Nonetheless, even if you believe that everything in the universe is completely deterministic, we still appear to ourselves to make completely free-choices, and any determinism that may be involved in such apparent free choices is well outside of our ability to perceive or measure, and so for our purposes, the choices that we make may as well be considered freely made.
So yes, he had a choice. If you want to be pedantic, he had a choice to the extent that humans can perceive choice in the first place.
I'm only attacking capitalism to the exact same extent that capitalism would create an even larger old hunger problem than what already exists by not trying to fix negative environmental impacts of existing commercial practices
Only when people who are better off aren't willing to share.
Wanting those who might be able to afford to help the less fortunate also starve to death because the world's actually run out of useful food altogether doesn't help.
AC gets it in one.
That it might be more expensive is moot.... more expensive food is still more desirable than no food at all.
Read the fine print on any "warranty" before spending any money on it. It's rare that they will actually do everything they imply when they sound too good to be true.
If you have questions, ask them... ask where in the warranty it says anything that you can't find, and if it's not explicitly written there, then get it in writing, and make sure that a manager signs off on it... not just figuratively, but literally.
One of two things will happen... either they will get frustrated and stop trying to sell you the warranty because they will realize that you're not a sucker from your questions, and insistence on personal accountability of any claims, or else you'll actually get the deal you thought you would.
Thanks for telling me that... I'll be sure to tell them at Staples when they try to sell me the EW on something that I'll need to talk to their manager... and then refuse him or her personally. Let's see them cut their own hours.
Probably, but they would have still been the ones responsible for the initial release of the information. If they had wanted to retain control of them, it's arguable that they would not have done so in such an unregulated fashion.
... be the first to make the admittedly very obvous reference to RHPS, but then I noticed the submitting department.
Meh. Everyone has a choice. They can either take responsibility for their actions, or they can be immature and blame other people for them.
100% sure? I doubt that... unless you are saying you are the accused yourself.
Because you see, he's claiming "not guilty", so that would imply he's asserting that he didn't do it. In our society one is innocent until proven guilty, so it makes no sense for anyone other than the accused to be 100% certain of anything in that matter, let alone that he felt he had no choice.
He wasn't fired. He quit in a huff over not getting a promotion that he presumably felt he deserved (and apparently even gave them 2 weeks notice).