First, I would make battle.net something worth using. That means putting the server and network capacity in place to properly serve the incredibly large number of users it has. Blizzard's games are extremely popular and have a great many users. The battle.net servers should be scaled accordingly to avoid problems.
It also means improving the stability of the servers as well. There have been weeks on end where the battle.net servers have been slow or just plain screwy. There have been repeated promises to correct problems, but ultimately, battle.net hasn't really improved much.
It means preventing the use of hacks that allow modification of player stats and posessions.
It means preventing the use of battle.net by the most abusive of users. (It is their property, after all.)
After making battle.net worthwhile, I would actually work to control piracy by controlling piracy, not by shutting down battle.net clones. You control pirates by shutting them down, not by shutting down the people who build the boats. I'm seeing plenty of evidence of Blizzard's abuse of the legal system to shut down competition for battle.net, but I've seen no evidence that they're going after the actual pirates at all. I'd certainly like to think that they're going after those who are actually pirating the WarCraft III beta. Instead what I'm seeing is that they're going after easy targets that will do nothing to prevent piracy and everything to protect battle.net as the only possible gaming server for their games. If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that they were about to start charging a monthly fee for battle.net, but that's just speculation.
Finally, I'd work with the BnetD developers to find a way to allow use of a third party server while maintaining some measure of protection against piracy. If the Quake 3 servers can do it, so could Blizzard.
BnetD isn't their property, but it infringes on it.
How? Emulation of battle.net isn't infringement in any way. Bnetd doesn't use any of the code running on the battle.net servers. It doesn't even use the battle.net servers in any way. How is it infringement? If you were talking about a software patent here (something else I'm against, but that's another issue), your argument might have some validity, but we're not.
For example, I have the right to cut down the branch from said neighbor's prized Japanese cherry blossom tree if it's hanging over my fence. The tree is his property, but it's infringing on my property.
Cute, but a bad analogy. You very well might have the right to lop off the limb of your neighbor's cherry tree in that case. (To be honest, I don't know what the legality is there; It probably varies from place to place.) What you don't have is the right to lop off the limb of your neighbor's cherry tree just because it looks too much like yours. That's what Blizzard is trying to do to bnetd.
They've used the DMCA to force the suppression of a program they did not write (bnetd) and therefore have no rights to merely because it is capable of emulating their own battle.net service. Blizzard did not create bnetd and no code from their own battle.net servers was used in its creation.
This is the equivalent of a publisher suppressing the publication of a dictionary by another publisher merely because most of the words are the same and have equivalent, but not identical, definitions.
They have no right to do so unless they can prove that substantial portions of their own work were copied to create the work they're trying to suppress.
They're protecting their property.
This would be like protecting your front lawn from trespassers by shooting your neighbor simply because he might try to come over for a visit sometime.
If they don't want Starcraft or Diablo played on non Battle.net servers (unless, of course, you're running over UDP or TCP), who are we to complain?
I'll tell you. We're the ones who paid for Starcraft and Diablo. I paid for the right to play the game. I should have the right to play the game any way I care to. I don't have the right to make copies and give them away, only the program's owner, Blizzard, has the right to do that. I don't have the right to play the copy I paid for on more than one system at a time, but if I paid for the right to use another copy, I have the right to use both at the same time any way I want to.
Blizzard can decide how they want to administer their property.
Fair enough, but bnetd isn't their property and that's the point.
wp8 won't even load with the 2.4 kernels; so I guess that's just a dead chicken
Huh? It loads and runs just fine on my SuSE 7.3 system running kernel 2.4.10. So far, it seems to be much less buggy than wp8 for Windows too....
It seems, though, that for all the talk I've heard about Corel being committed to Linux and open source development, the reality just wasn't there. A poorly supported Linux distro, killing a native code package (wp8) in favor of a buggy, unsupported port of Windows code (WP Office 2000), and another Windows port which never really saw the light of day (Corel Draw) doesn't really strike me as commitment.
I'll miss Corel contributing to my Linux-using experience a lot (I like WP8 for Linux) but it will be a lot more for what they might have done versus what they actually did.
Dimitry will not face any charges, nor will have a felony record.
Unfortunately, this isn't what this means. What the government has said they're doing is defering prosecution until a later date.
They've said they'll considering dropping charges after a year or after ElcomSoft is tried, whichever comes later, only if he has met his "obligations". If he hasn't, they'll just place him back on trial in a year or whenever the ElcomSoft trial is finished, whichever is later. The wording of the government agreement seems vague enough that they could simply change their minds at that point, making up some "obligation" he didn't meet.
The challenge to the DMCA is still possible but may not be able to go very far considering the fact that ElcomSoft is not a U.S. corporation. (At least I'm pretty sure they're not. Does anyone here know for sure?)
There is still plenty of chance of criminal repercussions from all this. There will still be a trial against ElcomSoft and there could still be one against Dmitry as well with possible convictions coming from both.
Hmmm. Not good. This reeks strongly of "This is your confession. Sign here, please."
The wording appears to be trying to paint Dmitry and ElcomSoft in as damning a light as possible (which, let's face it, isn't very, except when viewed vs. the DMCA).
I find it difficult to imagine that he came out with that on his own without it somehow being prompted or, worse yet, ghost written. What I don't find it difficult to imagine is that this may have been his only chance of seeing his wife and children on any kind of semi-permanent basis.
The worst thing is that the government is reserving the right to place him on trial (or should I say back on trial) any time a year or more from now. They have not said they'll definitely be dropping charges against him. I can easily forsee a situation where, in a year or once the ElcomSoft trial is over, the government could cobble together some explanation of how Dmitry didn't meet his "obligations" and place him back on trial.
I had hoped our government wouldn't be resorting to this kind of tactic. It's beginning to get to the point where I'm actually ashamed to call myself a citizen here.
I think it's about the best news I've heard all month. I'm certain it is from Dmitry's standpoint.
Now on to less important things: What does this mean for the case and it's value as a test of the DMCA? For one thing, without the rallying point of Dmitry's imprisonment, either his jail time before being released on bail or, more imprtantly, the potential of him seeing a lot of jail time if the case were lost, this case is going to end up being a lot lower profile than it might have been. I think this is mainly what the government is hoping for here, something they hope will be an easy trial with a low profile.
I think that the argument that he's being forced to testify against his employer is plainly bogus. Will he be testifying? Sure, either in person or in a deposition. Will it really be against his employer, ElcomSoft? Hard to say, but I sincerely doubt it. He doesn't see any of what either he or his employer, ElcomSoft, did as illegal or wrong and nor do ElcomSoft. By the standards and laws in Russia where the majority of the "crime" took place, it wasn't either illegal or wrong.
And before someone gets in mind to correct me, yes, I do know that that isn't the only issue involved here; there's also the matter of ElcomSoft's program being sold here. That's going to be the real sticking point of the case and really the only one where the government has any kind of legitimate gripe.
I think this could (could, mind you, not will) still end up being a good test of the DMCA, depending on how willing and able Elcomsoft is to do what it takes to fight this case. It could (again, could) go quite a way toward establishing precedent on the jurisdictional issues as well.
I don't have any problem with someone trying to put food on the table. I even like the game (though I have to admit that I spend much more of my gaming time with Diablo II).
My problem comes from the apparent bait-and-switch tactic here where the program was released as open source, tested by everyone and their brother who had the (obviously incorrect) impression that it would remain open source, then suddenly the source was closed and a price tag was added. By my lights this is exactly the same cheesy stunt that Sistina pulled with GFS and is the main reason I won't be getting a copy of Tuxracer 1.0.
If Tuxracer's developers had either charged from day one or made it clear that the final version would be a commercial product this wouldn't be an issue for me.
I can't see how and make no mistake, the effect is the same: the information has been removed from public access. Whether someone's intentions were good or not, removal of the information from public access is the effect here. That's a fact. Long or short term anything makes no difference at this point. This is happening now.
Sure, the previous poster could have tried to convince me that his intentions were good, but he didn't (and that was the point of my previous post). In fact, he so much as admitted that it wasn't a good thing to do but was doing it anyway. It would take a lot more than that to convince me of anyone's intentions where a purge of valuable information is taking place.
You know, I've got to congratulate you. You never said "trust me" once, yet you're implying that this approach to homeland "security" is proper, correct, folks should trust that it is the right thing, and are going out of your way not to give any answer at all to the most important question: Why?Why is this what's being done? Why, if "it is not a good thing to pull this info", do it at all?
The problems that come from this approach are many and I find myself wondering if you or any of those you've dealt with ("up to the General level") are conscious of what kind of issues they're getting into here.
One obvious one is that implying that people should trust and agree what's being done is right without telling them why is a good way to get the exact opposite reaction.
Another is this: It doesn't matter whether you or those you're working for or dealing with have "very good reasons" or not. It doesn't matter whether you, those you've dealt with, or the top politicos in Washington have any interest in censorship or not. The problem is that the effect is the same regardless of interests, beliefs, or concerns; Informaiton is being censored here. Perfectly good information that has many more legitimate, non-terrorist uses than terrorist ones.
Suppressing information is not going to stop anyone from terrorizing anybody.
Unlike you, I can go into more detail but I won't. I'd like to think anyone reading wouldn't need to ask me "Why?" but if they do, I'd be happy to tell them. Of course now you'll think that I'm just some post-happy conspiracy theorist who has read 1984 or Farenheit 451 one too many times. "Oh well, I tried."
Sure, I can see that personal freedoms, "rights" if you will, are going down the dumper. Lately things seem to be picking up speed. The real question is this: what do we do about it?
Well, let's start with throwing the bums out. Not the terrorists. I'm talking about the politicians who are, with this boneheaded act and many, many others like it, are finishing the terrorists' work for them. I like to think I've done my part. Perhaps not as well as I could have, but I've done what I was allowed to: I'm certainly not the one who voted them into office. Most of the folks I know whom I could convince didn't either. Unfortunately, they're still there and still in power. Let's scratch that technique off the list.
Well, another possibility is this: Let's throw the bums out at the point of a gun. I'm certainly not the only one whose ever thought of this; Just ask any member of one of the many "militias" which have sprung up in this country over the past couple of decades (and don't let your eyes swim too much at the speed with which he or she tries to recruit you). Before any of you think I'm advocating this kind of response, let me assure you that I'm not. Bloodshed is seldom the right response to anything, this included. Bloodshed is what started all of this in the first place and I just can't bring myself to see it as a part of the solution. Let's throw this "solution" out too.
The only other thing I can think of is to go somewhere where this sort of #^#$^$# isn't a problem. Can anyone think of somewhere where this sort of thing doesn't go on? (Again, I'm not talking about the terrorism here...) I can't, but let's assume you can. Out of those places, can you think of any that haven't or aren't in the process of adopting the U.S.A.'s way of thinking (for any of a variety of reasons, potential terrorism included)? Maybe you can, but I can't.
So what's a body to do? I'd love to hear some good answers and I'm sure a lot of other folks would too. The clock is ticking.....
I'm not sure about anyone else's servers, but recent Compaq servers _do_ have multiple speed fans (at least the ML370's I've been working with do...) I haven't checked but don't believe the systems support APM or ACPI. The fans' speed are definitely under software control; They slow down as soon a Compaq management agent loads on the server. I know the system also monitors its internal temperature and I'm assuming it will kick the fan speed back to full (just high and low speeds, not infinitely variable) speed once the temperature gets high enough.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I would make battle.net something worth using. That means putting the server and network capacity in place to properly serve the incredibly large number of users it has. Blizzard's games are extremely popular and have a great many users. The battle.net servers should be scaled accordingly to avoid problems.
It also means improving the stability of the servers as well. There have been weeks on end where the battle.net servers have been slow or just plain screwy. There have been repeated promises to correct problems, but ultimately, battle.net hasn't really improved much.
It means preventing the use of hacks that allow modification of player stats and posessions.
It means preventing the use of battle.net by the most abusive of users. (It is their property, after all.)
After making battle.net worthwhile, I would actually work to control piracy by controlling piracy, not by shutting down battle.net clones. You control pirates by shutting them down, not by shutting down the people who build the boats. I'm seeing plenty of evidence of Blizzard's abuse of the legal system to shut down competition for battle.net, but I've seen no evidence that they're going after the actual pirates at all. I'd certainly like to think that they're going after those who are actually pirating the WarCraft III beta. Instead what I'm seeing is that they're going after easy targets that will do nothing to prevent piracy and everything to protect battle.net as the only possible gaming server for their games. If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that they were about to start charging a monthly fee for battle.net, but that's just speculation.
Finally, I'd work with the BnetD developers to find a way to allow use of a third party server while maintaining some measure of protection against piracy. If the Quake 3 servers can do it, so could Blizzard.
How? Emulation of battle.net isn't infringement in any way. Bnetd doesn't use any of the code running on the battle.net servers. It doesn't even use the battle.net servers in any way. How is it infringement? If you were talking about a software patent here (something else I'm against, but that's another issue), your argument might have some validity, but we're not.
For example, I have the right to cut down the branch from said neighbor's prized Japanese cherry blossom tree if it's hanging over my fence. The tree is his property, but it's infringing on my property.
Cute, but a bad analogy. You very well might have the right to lop off the limb of your neighbor's cherry tree in that case. (To be honest, I don't know what the legality is there; It probably varies from place to place.) What you don't have is the right to lop off the limb of your neighbor's cherry tree just because it looks too much like yours. That's what Blizzard is trying to do to bnetd.
They've used the DMCA to force the suppression of a program they did not write (bnetd) and therefore have no rights to merely because it is capable of emulating their own battle.net service. Blizzard did not create bnetd and no code from their own battle.net servers was used in its creation.
This is the equivalent of a publisher suppressing the publication of a dictionary by another publisher merely because most of the words are the same and have equivalent, but not identical, definitions. They have no right to do so unless they can prove that substantial portions of their own work were copied to create the work they're trying to suppress.
They're protecting their property.
This would be like protecting your front lawn from trespassers by shooting your neighbor simply because he might try to come over for a visit sometime.
If they don't want Starcraft or Diablo played on non Battle.net servers (unless, of course, you're running over UDP or TCP), who are we to complain?
I'll tell you. We're the ones who paid for Starcraft and Diablo. I paid for the right to play the game. I should have the right to play the game any way I care to. I don't have the right to make copies and give them away, only the program's owner, Blizzard, has the right to do that. I don't have the right to play the copy I paid for on more than one system at a time, but if I paid for the right to use another copy, I have the right to use both at the same time any way I want to.
Blizzard can decide how they want to administer their property.
Fair enough, but bnetd isn't their property and that's the point.
Huh? It loads and runs just fine on my SuSE 7.3 system running kernel 2.4.10. So far, it seems to be much less buggy than wp8 for Windows too....
It seems, though, that for all the talk I've heard about Corel being committed to Linux and open source development, the reality just wasn't there. A poorly supported Linux distro, killing a native code package (wp8) in favor of a buggy, unsupported port of Windows code (WP Office 2000), and another Windows port which never really saw the light of day (Corel Draw) doesn't really strike me as commitment.
I'll miss Corel contributing to my Linux-using experience a lot (I like WP8 for Linux) but it will be a lot more for what they might have done versus what they actually did.
How come it's a different picture every time I hit the site?!?!?!
Seriously, though: CONGRATULATIONS!!!! WAY TO GO!!! WHOOOHOOOO!!!
Here's hoping for all the best....
Dimitry will not face any charges, nor will have a felony record.
Unfortunately, this isn't what this means. What the government has said they're doing is defering prosecution until a later date.
They've said they'll considering dropping charges after a year or after ElcomSoft is tried, whichever comes later, only if he has met his "obligations". If he hasn't, they'll just place him back on trial in a year or whenever the ElcomSoft trial is finished, whichever is later. The wording of the government agreement seems vague enough that they could simply change their minds at that point, making up some "obligation" he didn't meet.
The challenge to the DMCA is still possible but may not be able to go very far considering the fact that ElcomSoft is not a U.S. corporation. (At least I'm pretty sure they're not. Does anyone here know for sure?)
There is still plenty of chance of criminal repercussions from all this. There will still be a trial against ElcomSoft and there could still be one against Dmitry as well with possible convictions coming from both.
Hmmm. Not good. This reeks strongly of "This is your confession. Sign here, please."
The wording appears to be trying to paint Dmitry and ElcomSoft in as damning a light as possible (which, let's face it, isn't very, except when viewed vs. the DMCA).
I find it difficult to imagine that he came out with that on his own without it somehow being prompted or, worse yet, ghost written. What I don't find it difficult to imagine is that this may have been his only chance of seeing his wife and children on any kind of semi-permanent basis.
The worst thing is that the government is reserving the right to place him on trial (or should I say back on trial) any time a year or more from now. They have not said they'll definitely be dropping charges against him. I can easily forsee a situation where, in a year or once the ElcomSoft trial is over, the government could cobble together some explanation of how Dmitry didn't meet his "obligations" and place him back on trial.
I had hoped our government wouldn't be resorting to this kind of tactic. It's beginning to get to the point where I'm actually ashamed to call myself a citizen here.
I think it's about the best news I've heard all month. I'm certain it is from Dmitry's standpoint.
Now on to less important things: What does this mean for the case and it's value as a test of the DMCA? For one thing, without the rallying point of Dmitry's imprisonment, either his jail time before being released on bail or, more imprtantly, the potential of him seeing a lot of jail time if the case were lost, this case is going to end up being a lot lower profile than it might have been. I think this is mainly what the government is hoping for here, something they hope will be an easy trial with a low profile.
I think that the argument that he's being forced to testify against his employer is plainly bogus. Will he be testifying? Sure, either in person or in a deposition. Will it really be against his employer, ElcomSoft? Hard to say, but I sincerely doubt it. He doesn't see any of what either he or his employer, ElcomSoft, did as illegal or wrong and nor do ElcomSoft. By the standards and laws in Russia where the majority of the "crime" took place, it wasn't either illegal or wrong.
And before someone gets in mind to correct me, yes, I do know that that isn't the only issue involved here; there's also the matter of ElcomSoft's program being sold here. That's going to be the real sticking point of the case and really the only one where the government has any kind of legitimate gripe.
I think this could (could, mind you, not will) still end up being a good test of the DMCA, depending on how willing and able Elcomsoft is to do what it takes to fight this case. It could (again, could) go quite a way toward establishing precedent on the jurisdictional issues as well.
Well, as soon as they go dark their value will be zero. Of course, as far as some of their customers are concerned, their value is zero now...
I don't have any problem with someone trying to put food on the table. I even like the game (though I have to admit that I spend much more of my gaming time with Diablo II).
My problem comes from the apparent bait-and-switch tactic here where the program was released as open source, tested by everyone and their brother who had the (obviously incorrect) impression that it would remain open source, then suddenly the source was closed and a price tag was added. By my lights this is exactly the same cheesy stunt that Sistina pulled with GFS and is the main reason I won't be getting a copy of Tuxracer 1.0.
If Tuxracer's developers had either charged from day one or made it clear that the final version would be a commercial product this wouldn't be an issue for me.
Sure, the previous poster could have tried to convince me that his intentions were good, but he didn't (and that was the point of my previous post). In fact, he so much as admitted that it wasn't a good thing to do but was doing it anyway. It would take a lot more than that to convince me of anyone's intentions where a purge of valuable information is taking place.
The problems that come from this approach are many and I find myself wondering if you or any of those you've dealt with ("up to the General level") are conscious of what kind of issues they're getting into here.
One obvious one is that implying that people should trust and agree what's being done is right without telling them why is a good way to get the exact opposite reaction.
Another is this: It doesn't matter whether you or those you're working for or dealing with have "very good reasons" or not. It doesn't matter whether you, those you've dealt with, or the top politicos in Washington have any interest in censorship or not. The problem is that the effect is the same regardless of interests, beliefs, or concerns; Informaiton is being censored here. Perfectly good information that has many more legitimate, non-terrorist uses than terrorist ones.
Suppressing information is not going to stop anyone from terrorizing anybody.
Unlike you, I can go into more detail but I won't. I'd like to think anyone reading wouldn't need to ask me "Why?" but if they do, I'd be happy to tell them. Of course now you'll think that I'm just some post-happy conspiracy theorist who has read 1984 or Farenheit 451 one too many times. "Oh well, I tried."
Well, let's start with throwing the bums out. Not the terrorists. I'm talking about the politicians who are, with this boneheaded act and many, many others like it, are finishing the terrorists' work for them. I like to think I've done my part. Perhaps not as well as I could have, but I've done what I was allowed to: I'm certainly not the one who voted them into office. Most of the folks I know whom I could convince didn't either. Unfortunately, they're still there and still in power. Let's scratch that technique off the list.
Well, another possibility is this: Let's throw the bums out at the point of a gun. I'm certainly not the only one whose ever thought of this; Just ask any member of one of the many "militias" which have sprung up in this country over the past couple of decades (and don't let your eyes swim too much at the speed with which he or she tries to recruit you). Before any of you think I'm advocating this kind of response, let me assure you that I'm not. Bloodshed is seldom the right response to anything, this included. Bloodshed is what started all of this in the first place and I just can't bring myself to see it as a part of the solution. Let's throw this "solution" out too.
The only other thing I can think of is to go somewhere where this sort of #^#$^$# isn't a problem. Can anyone think of somewhere where this sort of thing doesn't go on? (Again, I'm not talking about the terrorism here...) I can't, but let's assume you can. Out of those places, can you think of any that haven't or aren't in the process of adopting the U.S.A.'s way of thinking (for any of a variety of reasons, potential terrorism included)? Maybe you can, but I can't.
So what's a body to do? I'd love to hear some good answers and I'm sure a lot of other folks would too. The clock is ticking.....
You could check out Opera for Linux. I haven't (yet!) but if it's as good as their Windows version, it should be more than worthwhile.
I'm not sure about anyone else's servers, but recent Compaq servers _do_ have multiple speed fans (at least the ML370's I've been working with do...) I haven't checked but don't believe the systems support APM or ACPI. The fans' speed are definitely under software control; They slow down as soon a Compaq management agent loads on the server. I know the system also monitors its internal temperature and I'm assuming it will kick the fan speed back to full (just high and low speeds, not infinitely variable) speed once the temperature gets high enough.