It is irrelevant whether the service is supplied by another or not. Blizzard's service is not patented; thus it can be legally duplicated by another organization. That is the nature of capitalism. Are you arguing against competition now?
You would do well to go read the guy's post above about Pockets being outlawed. It is not a ridiculous comparison; both involve the use of a tool which has legal as well as illegal purposes. And, as I explained in my own post (which you did not respond to) - bnetd does not allow you to pirate the game. Go ahead - download bnetd, then use it to pirate something. It doesn't do that. You would have already had to pirate the game, and then you could enable multiplayer with bnetd. Not steal, but rather enable one of the game's many features AFTER you used a different tool (or two) to steal it.
Now think really carefully. If I were to steal a game off of the internet, and then I used someone else's tool to allow me to enable one of my stolen game's features, (because it unintentionally just happens to do that) - who is the thief? The guy who made the tool? I don't think so. Thieves are thieves. Manufacturers of lockpicks, knives, saws, and hammers are not thieves.
Here is another example: some Blizzard games (such as Diablo II) use a copy protection method known as SafeDisc. A combination of software and hardware can now be used to effectively copy Safedisc, producing perfect, pirated backups. However, no one is advocating outlawing either the hardware or the software. Why not? I can certainly see why Blizzard is not suing the manufacturers of CD-R's or the developers of CD Burn Software, but my question is: do you support this, from an ideological perspective? If not, please explain why the Internet and CD Burners (which can be used to STEAL things) are OK, but bnetd (which can NOT be used to steal things) is not.
1. - Blizzard is under NO OBLIGATION to make "open" the BATTLE.NET protocol.
While this in itself is true, no one ever claimed they were under any "obligation". They, however, made their own protocol open by not patenting it. Sorry, buddy, they did it without being "obligated".
2. - the BnetD had NO RIGHT to reverse-engineer the BATTLE.NET protocol
Vivendi's favorite document, the DMCA, grants anyone the right to legally reverse engineer things for the purpose of interoperability. So what are you basing your statement on, exactly?
3. - the BnetD provides a way to circumvent the copy control measures of the BATTLE.NET portion of Blizzard's games
Well, you can't actually pirate Blizzard's games with bnetd, so what exactly is your point? To pirate a game, you will need:
A. The internet (to download an ISO image)
B. A CD-Burner (to burn a copy)
THEN, you could play it even without bnetd. It seems that the contribution to piracy is very much larger for A. and B. than it is for bnetd. So are you advocating the outlawing of those two items as well?
Let me ask you a question, since you seem to think that since Blizzard developed the protocol, it is untouchable by anyone else. Are you using Internet Explorer right now? They did not invent HTTP, Gopher, or FTP, and yet, ALL THREE PROTOCOLS ARE ACCESSIBLE directly from that particular browser. So, if the NCSA came and sued over the use of its protocols tomorrow, would you support them? If Microsoft sues the makers of Samba, will you support MS? What about telnet? TCP/IP? AppleTalk?
As for Blizzard having the "RIGHT" to shut down bnetd... this right is not granted anywhere in the U.S. law. The right to reverse engineer is. So don't talk to me about rights.
Try reading their original DMCA threat, followed by the actual suit they filed. Notice that they have now taken a completely different direction than originally indicated. That shows you that their original threat was completely empty and so insubstantial that they weren't even willing to pursue it themselves. It's laughable.
Now, read the suit they have filed. It is almost completely without legal merit. Blizzard is abusing the U.S. legal system in a tactical manner, to some end or another, without actually having a case. They are wasting the courts' time with nonsense. If you want to defend them, then put together a good lawsuit for them. (Please note that "THEY MADE ME LOSE MONEY!!!!! WAAAAAH" does not qualify as such.) If you write up a good reason that bnetd is illegal, send it to Blizzard/Vivendi, because it looks like they have no clue!
I agree with what you just said - except for one thing: what the hell do you do that's so much better? Please clarify, because just tearing down other people's ideas about activism without mentioning what they should be doing instead is completely crazy. In fact, let's take the specific example of recycling, which you seem to have a beef with. What could you possibly be doing to cut down on waste that's better than that? Did you fire off a big fat check to some sort of Sanitation Reform Committee? I can't even imagine...
you have weighed your priorities and made a conscious decision about what means more to your ideals. The original poster was saying that you can scream bloody murder about a company's policy one day while continuing to support what they do with a shrug of your shoulders, and I must agree that that would be very, very hypocritical.
I feel your pain...
on
Nethack 3.4.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But you just haven't given it sufficient chance. It only seems clunky at first because people are not used to the game's key ideas:
A. You don't need flashy graphics
B. You only have one life
Perhaps you are frustrated by other things as well, but these two things seem to turn off the most people, as far as I can see. People who get hung up on the game's difficulty and/or interface often fail to notice the hundreds of things that can actually happen in the game that make you stop and say "I can't believe they thought of that!" My wife was playing one time; she read a scroll of Punishment and was outfitted with a ball and chain. Later, she fell in a pit trap, and while attempting to climb out, the ball rolled in and hit her character in the head, ending the game. I find that completely funny and cool. Or the fact that you can get rings from kitchen sinks. Makes sense, right? Discovery is everything in Nethack...
Isn't it great that all I have to do is ask and I can have any information I want removed from the most widely used search engine on the 'net? And think about it this way: since there are thousands of corporations in existence, and since they all have information they probably don't want people spreading, and since Google will basically just bend over and do anything a company asks them to, there soon won't be any information left in their database. Great job, Google!
I have a sneaking suspicion that there are Scientologists working at Google. How else do you explain their sudden shifting in attitude and policy. Up until now, they've maintained that information indexed within their database is not their responsibility... Just think about it.
I've re-read my previous comment and I was obviously a tremendous dick. I apologize. My factually supported position on the matter (i don't know about unemotional) is that bnetd legally (in my opinion) reverse engineered a network protocol, which does in my mind enable them to write interoperable software. There has been much debate over whether there is any interoperability, since the reverse engineered software (battle.net) never interacts directly with bnetd. This has merit; however, it is extremely similar to other open source software derived from commercial protocols; i.e. Samba, WINE, etc. People seem very willing to support their development while at the same time unwilling to see how bnetd might be extremely similar, as it provides a third party competitive product utilizing non-copyrighted information (battle.net protocol).
It also must be protected because it is in fact a legal, competitive product. Even if it undercuts battle.net, which has not been conclusively proven, it has a right to compete if it wishes to. Whether it is given away for free or not is irrelevant. If Bob sets up a lemonade stand and sells lemonade for 25 cents a glass, and I set up across the street and give it away, I am a jerk; but a constitutionally protected jerk (though I may fall under anticompetition laws for undercutting his price - this does not apply to bnetd since battle.net charges no fees).
Once again, I apologize for acting like an ass. I get emotional myself at times.
There's so much wrong with that flame I hardly know where to begin. First you post an overly emotional, unintelligent rant about the situation; then you come back, repeat yourself, and act as if I am the one with the comprehension problem. Read your own post (assuming it was yours) and see if it really conveys anything clearly other than a bunch of whining about how we should all shut up about it with absolutely no facts to back it up. Then read your reply and realize that you added nothing to the original drivel.
But why do you think that the product should not be made, even if some people want to use it legitimately? Do you own a VCR, CD Writer, Screwdriver? (with which you could take things apart to study how they work or even KILL someone!) Is it the tool maker's fault if the tool is used for illicit purposes? NO. According to almost ALL legal precedent in this area, if a tool has significant legal purposes, then it can not be outlawed simply because it is possible to use it illegally. Sorry.
A. Contains no actual content except "Blizzard makes good games. So they are good. Battle.net is also good. Why don't you like stuff that is good?"
B. Contains nothing having anything to do with actual law. EULA? Please! The UCITA has passed in 2 states that I know of, and NOT ONE case has proven that a EULA can be used as a legally enforcible document. Not one. And please, if you're going to make a statement such as "It violates copyright law" the least you could do is actually clarify what exactly you mean by that. How does it violate copyright law? This would be an important thing to explain in a discussion.
So, we shouldn't care if Blizzard abuses the DMCA because they make good games? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. (and that is saying a lot.)
>What reason do they have to play nice and let
>bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose
>ad revenue if they do that, and they -
>potentially- lose more sales due to piracy
It's not up to them whether they should "let" people do things that are perfectly legal. It's not "playing nice" to respect the rights of other people; it's the way it has to be. Get all of the other fascists together and get this through your hard stone heads: Blizzard CAN NOT create legal policy; nor can any other corporation. They are not lawmakers; they can not decide to declare something illegal because it presses upon their revenue stream. They (and you) also need to realize that stretching the boundaries of an existing law while operating under the assumption that your legal opponents will not gather the funds needed to fight back is intolerable and does ABSOLUTELY NOT constitute fair defense of your property.
>I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
No, not rightly so. It would suck because someone is COMPETING with you. Are you a capitalist or a dictator?
Many (perhaps most) of the users of Netscape also use its POP mail feature to download their mail from their ISP. If Netscape has your e-mail address, and tracks your browsing/searching habits, well, let's see.....
Address List + Targeted marketing =...
Well, i think you all see where I'm going with this.
While this argument does tend to be extremely one-sided at times on good ol' Slashdot, your implication that it should be a non-issue to people is preposterous.
What you're basically saying is that AOL can do anything it wants with their browser, and anyone who thinks otherwise should either
A. Stuff it
B. Write a browser
While just about anyone could choose (A), I believe you have greatly overestimated/exaggerated the amount of people who are capable of (B). Perhaps there are quite a few on Slashdot; certainly there would be a greater concentration of such people here than in the average American suburb; however, reacting to every argument over the ethics of data gathering in application software with "WRITE IT YUORSLEF!!!!!" might not be the most intelligent way to join the discussion. No one is going to listen to you in a debate if you act as if there is no debate and your point is totally obvious. Not everyone can write a browser; and most people are just going to use what's on their computer when they buy it. Arguing that spying on people who don't know any better and have no way to protect themselves *might* just be a little shady certainly is valid and does not warrant your instant dismissal.
Yeah I know, it's like torture to listen to this s**t for five minutes, let alone 75, but hey, some people will buy anything, and you can bet they'll love it if they can get 150 minutes of the same mass produced crap fest for the same price!
Effective copy protection, including that threatened by the SSSCA, can never succeed in the current marketplace; simply because the likelihood of findind a media format that is noticeably better than the CD/DVD is unlikely. The only way to improve upon the already existing sound format, at least to the average listener, would be to increase the storage capacity, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the RIAA isn't going to suddenly wise up and give you more for your money.
What it comes down to is that asking average joe american to run out and buy all new electronics, while the economy is down, and without gaining an advantage in sound quality in return, is just going to piss a lot of people off. And there is NO way that copy protected CD's can be changed to work with existing hardware in an effective manner; if you can play them on current, unprotected hardware (of any kind), they are obviously not secure.
The industry, as it is, only pisses off educated people in general. And there aren't enough of us to make a difference to them. They might want to be careful where they walk with this crap, though. When they piss off every U.S. resident who owns a stereo, they might not enjoy the results. At least, I hope that's the way it would turn out...
First off, Ebay (no link provided) is the ugliest site I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. An example of functionality with completely minimal and ugly aesthetics.
An example of a website that looks really, really sharp is:
It's the restaurant owned by Iron Chef Japanese Masaharu Morimoto (and his partner, some big restaurant guy whose name escapes me). Don't be fooled by that frightening animation with that scary looking woman on the front; it's actually a very nicely designed site.
Also, as far as interface goes (which seems to be the only thing I have any information about), the new SAP R/3 6.10 GUI has a really, really nice design to it. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any screenshots of it, but if you do manage to get a look at that software, it's pretty good stuff.
Not at all! To be "liberal" in the simplest sense means that you want to change the way the system works. (this is why it is opposed to "conservatism") The Green Party is not actually even a real political party if you examine them - they are just a conglomeration of extremely loosely affiliated smaller groups of people whose only common thread is that they have SOME problem with the way things work. ("the MAN"). Their arguments for why things aren't working and what should be done about it tend to be not at all well thought out, since none of them can agree on these things, since they are all pursuing separate agendas. If you read their official party platform (there are actually 2, good luck there!), however, it would appear that their goals are clear and well-defined. But make no mistake, despite their poor organization, they are the only real liberal party in this country. And a happy medium between their ideas and the Libertarians' would be a lot more easily definable and appealing than trying to do the same thing with the Republicrats and Demoblicans.
Sorry; if criminal piracy is going on (which it is) then the pirates are at fault. Let's repeat that. The PIRATES are at fault. Not the internet. Not unprotected hardware. Not transmission protocols. Etc. Etc. Etc. Enfore laws against criminals, not customers.
NO! The Democrats are the party that likes to pretend they're liberal and "for the common man" and whatever other crap they want you to believe, but actually, THIS is a much better representation of the way many Democrats think:
Neither of the two political giants are out to serve your best interests. Who was in the White House when the DMCA passed? Better yet, who SIGNED THE THING into law? A Democrat. Billy also signed one of the every-so-often Copyright Terms Extension Acts that Disney likes to shell out $ for. There's your standing up for the common man!
The Libertarians are the only real conservatives, and the Green Party are the only real liberals. Don't let anyone tell you those corporate serving, rights-raping bastards in Congress and in the White House are anything but.
There is so much wrong with that idea that I can't even believe it would be discussed. I am already annoyed that devices can't be manufactured in the U.S. which bypass region protection, and this is taking that idea a step further in the wrong direction. If you think about it, the next logical step to take if this fails to work after passing is to require everyone to wear headphones so that they are unable to hear any sound they have not expressly paid for. Of course, taking the headphones off would violate the DMCA, since you would be bypassing a technological copy prevention method and gaining unauthorized access to data.
This is the direction we're moving in now; where anything can be legislated if it protects access to intellectual property, despite its complete detriment to personal rights. This sort of idea should never come to pass in a free thinking society. Those that have proposed it are the absolute worst among us. Just complete scum.
Slashdot Mirror
It is irrelevant whether the service is supplied by another or not. Blizzard's service is not patented; thus it can be legally duplicated by another organization. That is the nature of capitalism. Are you arguing against competition now?
You would do well to go read the guy's post above about Pockets being outlawed. It is not a ridiculous comparison; both involve the use of a tool which has legal as well as illegal purposes. And, as I explained in my own post (which you did not respond to) - bnetd does not allow you to pirate the game. Go ahead - download bnetd, then use it to pirate something. It doesn't do that. You would have already had to pirate the game, and then you could enable multiplayer with bnetd. Not steal, but rather enable one of the game's many features AFTER you used a different tool (or two) to steal it.
Now think really carefully. If I were to steal a game off of the internet, and then I used someone else's tool to allow me to enable one of my stolen game's features, (because it unintentionally just happens to do that) - who is the thief? The guy who made the tool? I don't think so. Thieves are thieves. Manufacturers of lockpicks, knives, saws, and hammers are not thieves.
Here is another example: some Blizzard games (such as Diablo II) use a copy protection method known as SafeDisc. A combination of software and hardware can now be used to effectively copy Safedisc, producing perfect, pirated backups. However, no one is advocating outlawing either the hardware or the software. Why not? I can certainly see why Blizzard is not suing the manufacturers of CD-R's or the developers of CD Burn Software, but my question is: do you support this, from an ideological perspective? If not, please explain why the Internet and CD Burners (which can be used to STEAL things) are OK, but bnetd (which can NOT be used to steal things) is not.
1. - Blizzard is under NO OBLIGATION to make "open" the BATTLE.NET protocol.
While this in itself is true, no one ever claimed they were under any "obligation". They, however, made their own protocol open by not patenting it. Sorry, buddy, they did it without being "obligated". 2. - the BnetD had NO RIGHT to reverse-engineer the BATTLE.NET protocol
Vivendi's favorite document, the DMCA, grants anyone the right to legally reverse engineer things for the purpose of interoperability. So what are you basing your statement on, exactly? 3. - the BnetD provides a way to circumvent the copy control measures of the BATTLE.NET portion of Blizzard's games
Well, you can't actually pirate Blizzard's games with bnetd, so what exactly is your point? To pirate a game, you will need:
A. The internet (to download an ISO image)
B. A CD-Burner (to burn a copy)
THEN, you could play it even without bnetd. It seems that the contribution to piracy is very much larger for A. and B. than it is for bnetd. So are you advocating the outlawing of those two items as well?
Let me ask you a question, since you seem to think that since Blizzard developed the protocol, it is untouchable by anyone else. Are you using Internet Explorer right now? They did not invent HTTP, Gopher, or FTP, and yet, ALL THREE PROTOCOLS ARE ACCESSIBLE directly from that particular browser. So, if the NCSA came and sued over the use of its protocols tomorrow, would you support them? If Microsoft sues the makers of Samba, will you support MS? What about telnet? TCP/IP? AppleTalk?
As for Blizzard having the "RIGHT" to shut down bnetd... this right is not granted anywhere in the U.S. law. The right to reverse engineer is. So don't talk to me about rights.
Try reading their original DMCA threat, followed by the actual suit they filed. Notice that they have now taken a completely different direction than originally indicated. That shows you that their original threat was completely empty and so insubstantial that they weren't even willing to pursue it themselves. It's laughable.
Now, read the suit they have filed. It is almost completely without legal merit. Blizzard is abusing the U.S. legal system in a tactical manner, to some end or another, without actually having a case. They are wasting the courts' time with nonsense. If you want to defend them, then put together a good lawsuit for them. (Please note that "THEY MADE ME LOSE MONEY!!!!! WAAAAAH" does not qualify as such.) If you write up a good reason that bnetd is illegal, send it to Blizzard/Vivendi, because it looks like they have no clue!
Don't bet on the license violations being important. There is no court precedent (yet) for upholding a EULA.
I agree with what you just said - except for one thing: what the hell do you do that's so much better? Please clarify, because just tearing down other people's ideas about activism without mentioning what they should be doing instead is completely crazy. In fact, let's take the specific example of recycling, which you seem to have a beef with. What could you possibly be doing to cut down on waste that's better than that? Did you fire off a big fat check to some sort of Sanitation Reform Committee? I can't even imagine...
you have weighed your priorities and made a conscious decision about what means more to your ideals. The original poster was saying that you can scream bloody murder about a company's policy one day while continuing to support what they do with a shrug of your shoulders, and I must agree that that would be very, very hypocritical.
But you just haven't given it sufficient chance. It only seems clunky at first because people are not used to the game's key ideas:
A. You don't need flashy graphics
B. You only have one life
Perhaps you are frustrated by other things as well, but these two things seem to turn off the most people, as far as I can see. People who get hung up on the game's difficulty and/or interface often fail to notice the hundreds of things that can actually happen in the game that make you stop and say "I can't believe they thought of that!" My wife was playing one time; she read a scroll of Punishment and was outfitted with a ball and chain. Later, she fell in a pit trap, and while attempting to climb out, the ball rolled in and hit her character in the head, ending the game. I find that completely funny and cool. Or the fact that you can get rings from kitchen sinks. Makes sense, right? Discovery is everything in Nethack...
Isn't it great that all I have to do is ask and I can have any information I want removed from the most widely used search engine on the 'net? And think about it this way: since there are thousands of corporations in existence, and since they all have information they probably don't want people spreading, and since Google will basically just bend over and do anything a company asks them to, there soon won't be any information left in their database. Great job, Google!
I have a sneaking suspicion that there are Scientologists working at Google. How else do you explain their sudden shifting in attitude and policy. Up until now, they've maintained that information indexed within their database is not their responsibility... Just think about it.
Click Here!
I've re-read my previous comment and I was obviously a tremendous dick. I apologize. My factually supported position on the matter (i don't know about unemotional) is that bnetd legally (in my opinion) reverse engineered a network protocol, which does in my mind enable them to write interoperable software. There has been much debate over whether there is any interoperability, since the reverse engineered software (battle.net) never interacts directly with bnetd. This has merit; however, it is extremely similar to other open source software derived from commercial protocols; i.e. Samba, WINE, etc. People seem very willing to support their development while at the same time unwilling to see how bnetd might be extremely similar, as it provides a third party competitive product utilizing non-copyrighted information (battle.net protocol).
It also must be protected because it is in fact a legal, competitive product. Even if it undercuts battle.net, which has not been conclusively proven, it has a right to compete if it wishes to. Whether it is given away for free or not is irrelevant. If Bob sets up a lemonade stand and sells lemonade for 25 cents a glass, and I set up across the street and give it away, I am a jerk; but a constitutionally protected jerk (though I may fall under anticompetition laws for undercutting his price - this does not apply to bnetd since battle.net charges no fees).
Once again, I apologize for acting like an ass. I get emotional myself at times.
There's so much wrong with that flame I hardly know where to begin. First you post an overly emotional, unintelligent rant about the situation; then you come back, repeat yourself, and act as if I am the one with the comprehension problem. Read your own post (assuming it was yours) and see if it really conveys anything clearly other than a bunch of whining about how we should all shut up about it with absolutely no facts to back it up. Then read your reply and realize that you added nothing to the original drivel.
But why do you think that the product should not be made, even if some people want to use it legitimately? Do you own a VCR, CD Writer, Screwdriver? (with which you could take things apart to study how they work or even KILL someone!) Is it the tool maker's fault if the tool is used for illicit purposes? NO. According to almost ALL legal precedent in this area, if a tool has significant legal purposes, then it can not be outlawed simply because it is possible to use it illegally. Sorry.
Your emotionally flowing speech is great; but it
A. Contains no actual content except "Blizzard makes good games. So they are good. Battle.net is also good. Why don't you like stuff that is good?"
B. Contains nothing having anything to do with actual law. EULA? Please! The UCITA has passed in 2 states that I know of, and NOT ONE case has proven that a EULA can be used as a legally enforcible document. Not one. And please, if you're going to make a statement such as "It violates copyright law" the least you could do is actually clarify what exactly you mean by that. How does it violate copyright law? This would be an important thing to explain in a discussion.
So, we shouldn't care if Blizzard abuses the DMCA because they make good games? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. (and that is saying a lot.)
>What reason do they have to play nice and let
>bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose
>ad revenue if they do that, and they -
>potentially- lose more sales due to piracy
It's not up to them whether they should "let" people do things that are perfectly legal. It's not "playing nice" to respect the rights of other people; it's the way it has to be. Get all of the other fascists together and get this through your hard stone heads: Blizzard CAN NOT create legal policy; nor can any other corporation. They are not lawmakers; they can not decide to declare something illegal because it presses upon their revenue stream. They (and you) also need to realize that stretching the boundaries of an existing law while operating under the assumption that your legal opponents will not gather the funds needed to fight back is intolerable and does ABSOLUTELY NOT constitute fair defense of your property.
>I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
No, not rightly so. It would suck because someone is COMPETING with you. Are you a capitalist or a dictator?
Can I get a copy of that? My Netscape keeps bogging down trying to access some site... damn thing!
Many (perhaps most) of the users of Netscape also use its POP mail feature to download their mail from their ISP. If Netscape has your e-mail address, and tracks your browsing/searching habits, well, let's see.....
...
Address List + Targeted marketing =
Well, i think you all see where I'm going with this.
While this argument does tend to be extremely one-sided at times on good ol' Slashdot, your implication that it should be a non-issue to people is preposterous.
What you're basically saying is that AOL can do anything it wants with their browser, and anyone who thinks otherwise should either
A. Stuff it
B. Write a browser
While just about anyone could choose (A), I believe you have greatly overestimated/exaggerated the amount of people who are capable of (B). Perhaps there are quite a few on Slashdot; certainly there would be a greater concentration of such people here than in the average American suburb; however, reacting to every argument over the ethics of data gathering in application software with "WRITE IT YUORSLEF!!!!!" might not be the most intelligent way to join the discussion. No one is going to listen to you in a debate if you act as if there is no debate and your point is totally obvious. Not everyone can write a browser; and most people are just going to use what's on their computer when they buy it. Arguing that spying on people who don't know any better and have no way to protect themselves *might* just be a little shady certainly is valid and does not warrant your instant dismissal.
Yeah I know, it's like torture to listen to this s**t for five minutes, let alone 75, but hey, some people will buy anything, and you can bet they'll love it if they can get 150 minutes of the same mass produced crap fest for the same price!
Effective copy protection, including that threatened by the SSSCA, can never succeed in the current marketplace; simply because the likelihood of findind a media format that is noticeably better than the CD/DVD is unlikely. The only way to improve upon the already existing sound format, at least to the average listener, would be to increase the storage capacity, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the RIAA isn't going to suddenly wise up and give you more for your money.
What it comes down to is that asking average joe american to run out and buy all new electronics, while the economy is down, and without gaining an advantage in sound quality in return, is just going to piss a lot of people off. And there is NO way that copy protected CD's can be changed to work with existing hardware in an effective manner; if you can play them on current, unprotected hardware (of any kind), they are obviously not secure.
The industry, as it is, only pisses off educated people in general. And there aren't enough of us to make a difference to them. They might want to be careful where they walk with this crap, though. When they piss off every U.S. resident who owns a stereo, they might not enjoy the results. At least, I hope that's the way it would turn out...
First off, Ebay (no link provided) is the ugliest site I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. An example of functionality with completely minimal and ugly aesthetics.
An example of a website that looks really, really sharp is:
Morimoto
It's the restaurant owned by Iron Chef Japanese Masaharu Morimoto (and his partner, some big restaurant guy whose name escapes me). Don't be fooled by that frightening animation with that scary looking woman on the front; it's actually a very nicely designed site.
Also, as far as interface goes (which seems to be the only thing I have any information about), the new SAP R/3 6.10 GUI has a really, really nice design to it. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any screenshots of it, but if you do manage to get a look at that software, it's pretty good stuff.
> Sorry, you mispelled communist.
Not at all! To be "liberal" in the simplest sense means that you want to change the way the system works. (this is why it is opposed to "conservatism") The Green Party is not actually even a real political party if you examine them - they are just a conglomeration of extremely loosely affiliated smaller groups of people whose only common thread is that they have SOME problem with the way things work. ("the MAN"). Their arguments for why things aren't working and what should be done about it tend to be not at all well thought out, since none of them can agree on these things, since they are all pursuing separate agendas. If you read their official party platform (there are actually 2, good luck there!), however, it would appear that their goals are clear and well-defined. But make no mistake, despite their poor organization, they are the only real liberal party in this country. And a happy medium between their ideas and the Libertarians' would be a lot more easily definable and appealing than trying to do the same thing with the Republicrats and Demoblicans.
Sorry; if criminal piracy is going on (which it is) then the pirates are at fault. Let's repeat that. The PIRATES are at fault. Not the internet. Not unprotected hardware. Not transmission protocols. Etc. Etc. Etc. Enfore laws against criminals, not customers.
NO! The Democrats are the party that likes to pretend they're liberal and "for the common man" and whatever other crap they want you to believe, but actually, THIS is a much better representation of the way many Democrats think:
Audiosyncratic - Tipper Gore
Neither of the two political giants are out to serve your best interests. Who was in the White House when the DMCA passed? Better yet, who SIGNED THE THING into law? A Democrat. Billy also signed one of the every-so-often Copyright Terms Extension Acts that Disney likes to shell out $ for. There's your standing up for the common man!
The Libertarians are the only real conservatives, and the Green Party are the only real liberals. Don't let anyone tell you those corporate serving, rights-raping bastards in Congress and in the White House are anything but.
There is so much wrong with that idea that I can't even believe it would be discussed. I am already annoyed that devices can't be manufactured in the U.S. which bypass region protection, and this is taking that idea a step further in the wrong direction. If you think about it, the next logical step to take if this fails to work after passing is to require everyone to wear headphones so that they are unable to hear any sound they have not expressly paid for. Of course, taking the headphones off would violate the DMCA, since you would be bypassing a technological copy prevention method and gaining unauthorized access to data.
This is the direction we're moving in now; where anything can be legislated if it protects access to intellectual property, despite its complete detriment to personal rights. This sort of idea should never come to pass in a free thinking society. Those that have proposed it are the absolute worst among us. Just complete scum.