"The writer says the thing will "devastate" the market for PC games"
So if q3 gets ported to the xbox, I'll be able to play any mod I want as well, huh? Wow, neato.
You're delusional if you think this is all common process. What do I expect the police to do to a non-violent protestor? Arrest him and respect his civil rights. Are you saying that it is logical to expect police to post unfairly high bail, deny phone calls, and conduct any nature of malicious acts upon protestors? If you don't think this happens, I hope you never get caught up in a protest yourself, because you may be surprised. I've witnessed it, others have witnessed it, and hopefully something will finally be done, whether people believe it or not.
I wonder if the New York Times will own up to the rather blatant fact that they fudged up. Seriously, if Mr. Young had come up with this method, it doesn't seem too terribly surprising that interested parties wouldn't have done so themselves. Hell, how many fast computers are there in Iran, anyway?
Look at it this way. Joe is involved in an Iranian political group that, for one reason or another, would LOVE to get back at the families of the people involved in the affairs mentioned in the report. So he sees this method to get all the names out of the file, and gets to work figuring out who it is - but the people implicated don't know this yet. So when the hidden names were published, publicity ran a tad rampant (I think it could be counted on that the Times would most definitely make a scene), and at least SOME of the people who might've been in danger before now knew that there was a possibility of people coming after them.
I'm curious if an over-zealous legal department sent that C&D letter before Napster's administrative board could sit down and think about all this. We've all seen the frothing drool lawyers get into when it comes to potential copyright violations, and who's to say Napster's immune? Hell, they have an OBLIGATION to do so to protect their license. While everyone sits back n' chortles to themselves over the irony, they seem to be *deliberately* ignoring the truth of the matter so that they can have a good chuckle. Once again, point of note: NO LAWSUIT WAS FILED, it was JUST A CEASE & DESIST LETTER.
The point of all this is that Apogee wants to control their COPYRIGHTED IMAGES, not their company name. People read the license with what CmdrTaco had in mind, which is why it seems so frightening, but do you really think that the UCITA will stand up to someone trying to prosecute you for saying bad things about a company? A license only extends so far as what it's licensing for, and this license was not made on the company name - only on copyrighted images. Mountain, meet mole hill.
How many people here did anything more than read the comments made by Hemos before spouting off here, seriously? Granted, Scott Miller may not've done the best job at responding to a bunch of questions (and the trend I see, which is qualified only by what I've read in the threads here, is that most of us who sent mail to him did so in a very provacative, possibly inflammatory, manner) about his company's motives. However, it seems that very few people had any idea in their head that Apogee was doing anything but trying to cut their share of the Bill of Rights. I think this is a case similar to the panick over the Borland C++ Compiler issue a week or two back. Can we please start doing research before posting? Part of doing news research is getting comments from as many sides as possible. Granted, we can't always wait a day or two to get a news item up - but this is twice in less than two weeks that the gun has been fired without legitimate cause. Hope this doesn't mark me as a troll, but the foolishness of all of this has me rather baffled.
You could do a search engine, I don't think AskJeeves really counts as AI. I'm sure you're looking for less saturated ideas, though. Web-based AI may be a bit premature right now. It seems as if most of the stuff done on the web relies almost exclusively on user-input, and I don't see a lot of need for a server-end AI application. Perhaps a client-based application that would work with a user's tendencies involving web-browsing and such. Say, for example, a program hat would know what pages to open up for you to read when you asked it (or would prompt you to open said pages, so as not to be too invasive?), what directory to download certain programs to - it'd be really convenient to not have to type g:\quake3\ every time I'm downloading a patch - the client could take context from the page I'm downloading from (or trace my usage from a certain page to known mirrors - i.e. from a page that mentions a q3 update on fileplanet.com to a cdrom.com mirror) to know where to put its files. I can't think of any really large duties for a web-based/oriented AI program, but I can imagine a lot of small ones.
I see a problem here. When trying to explain to people who are not In the Know about this whole situation, how do you explain to someone that has no predisposition for or against MS or Slashdot that posting methods of circumventing the EULA is not wrong in the first place? Think about it, if this comes to a court case, someone's going to have to explain to the jury that this isn't a karmic response to a few people's deviant behavior. I'd really like to know other people's takes on this, so I can feel more confident in explaining this entire thing to people. Also, I'm not terribly versed on the DMCA. I have read through part of it, but IANAL, and I could really use a summary - including all or some of the potential misuses of the DMCA. Thanks for the help. The Kow
Slashdot Mirror
"The writer says the thing will "devastate" the market for PC games" So if q3 gets ported to the xbox, I'll be able to play any mod I want as well, huh? Wow, neato.
You make it sound like 3dfx is on their life rafts. Last I knew they weren't doing too terribly, though they may not be the top competitor out there.
Glad I'm not the only one who quirked an eyebrow.
You're delusional if you think this is all common process. What do I expect the police to do to a non-violent protestor? Arrest him and respect his civil rights. Are you saying that it is logical to expect police to post unfairly high bail, deny phone calls, and conduct any nature of malicious acts upon protestors? If you don't think this happens, I hope you never get caught up in a protest yourself, because you may be surprised. I've witnessed it, others have witnessed it, and hopefully something will finally be done, whether people believe it or not.
I wonder if the New York Times will own up to the rather blatant fact that they fudged up. Seriously, if Mr. Young had come up with this method, it doesn't seem too terribly surprising that interested parties wouldn't have done so themselves. Hell, how many fast computers are there in Iran, anyway?
Look at it this way. Joe is involved in an Iranian political group that, for one reason or another, would LOVE to get back at the families of the people involved in the affairs mentioned in the report. So he sees this method to get all the names out of the file, and gets to work figuring out who it is - but the people implicated don't know this yet. So when the hidden names were published, publicity ran a tad rampant (I think it could be counted on that the Times would most definitely make a scene), and at least SOME of the people who might've been in danger before now knew that there was a possibility of people coming after them.
I'm curious if an over-zealous legal department sent that C&D letter before Napster's administrative board could sit down and think about all this. We've all seen the frothing drool lawyers get into when it comes to potential copyright violations, and who's to say Napster's immune? Hell, they have an OBLIGATION to do so to protect their license. While everyone sits back n' chortles to themselves over the irony, they seem to be *deliberately* ignoring the truth of the matter so that they can have a good chuckle. Once again, point of note: NO LAWSUIT WAS FILED, it was JUST A CEASE & DESIST LETTER.
The point of all this is that Apogee wants to control their COPYRIGHTED IMAGES, not their company name. People read the license with what CmdrTaco had in mind, which is why it seems so frightening, but do you really think that the UCITA will stand up to someone trying to prosecute you for saying bad things about a company? A license only extends so far as what it's licensing for, and this license was not made on the company name - only on copyrighted images. Mountain, meet mole hill.
Sorry, CmdrTaco posted that, not Hemos. Apologies for the wrong name.
How many people here did anything more than read the comments made by Hemos before spouting off here, seriously? Granted, Scott Miller may not've done the best job at responding to a bunch of questions (and the trend I see, which is qualified only by what I've read in the threads here, is that most of us who sent mail to him did so in a very provacative, possibly inflammatory, manner) about his company's motives. However, it seems that very few people had any idea in their head that Apogee was doing anything but trying to cut their share of the Bill of Rights. I think this is a case similar to the panick over the Borland C++ Compiler issue a week or two back. Can we please start doing research before posting? Part of doing news research is getting comments from as many sides as possible. Granted, we can't always wait a day or two to get a news item up - but this is twice in less than two weeks that the gun has been fired without legitimate cause. Hope this doesn't mark me as a troll, but the foolishness of all of this has me rather baffled.
You could do a search engine, I don't think AskJeeves really counts as AI. I'm sure you're looking for less saturated ideas, though. Web-based AI may be a bit premature right now. It seems as if most of the stuff done on the web relies almost exclusively on user-input, and I don't see a lot of need for a server-end AI application. Perhaps a client-based application that would work with a user's tendencies involving web-browsing and such. Say, for example, a program hat would know what pages to open up for you to read when you asked it (or would prompt you to open said pages, so as not to be too invasive?), what directory to download certain programs to - it'd be really convenient to not have to type g:\quake3\ every time I'm downloading a patch - the client could take context from the page I'm downloading from (or trace my usage from a certain page to known mirrors - i.e. from a page that mentions a q3 update on fileplanet.com to a cdrom.com mirror) to know where to put its files. I can't think of any really large duties for a web-based/oriented AI program, but I can imagine a lot of small ones.
I see a problem here. When trying to explain to people who are not In the Know about this whole situation, how do you explain to someone that has no predisposition for or against MS or Slashdot that posting methods of circumventing the EULA is not wrong in the first place? Think about it, if this comes to a court case, someone's going to have to explain to the jury that this isn't a karmic response to a few people's deviant behavior. I'd really like to know other people's takes on this, so I can feel more confident in explaining this entire thing to people. Also, I'm not terribly versed on the DMCA. I have read through part of it, but IANAL, and I could really use a summary - including all or some of the potential misuses of the DMCA. Thanks for the help. The Kow