I think the reason Paladins complain about their damage is that they are slow to kill stuff while soloing on PvE type stuff. They probably haven't spent much time in BG or just don't realize how powerful their defensive stuff makes them.
As an example, I spent a bunch of time in Warson Gulch, and I play horde. The alliance tends to have a paladin grab the flag and run with it. The reason for this is that a good paladin needs almost no cover. I've seen lone paladins with half a dozen horde players chasing them down make it all the way across the map with the flag. The reason is that they are nearly impossible to kill, especially if they have good equipment and potions. Hence the reason horde players complain about Paladins.
Honestly though, I don't think they really needed to revamp them much. Yes, they were a bitch to drop, but it could be done if the horde players were smart. Tip for horde players: if the paladin isn't dying, stop trying to kill him and look for another healer. Most of the time there will be a priest or druid giving him a bit of healing help, drop that assistance first, and the paladin usually becomes hard to kill, as opposed to impossible. Also, don't try to solo kill a paladin, unless you have several levels on him. Moreover, if you are in the BG stay with the group, and team up on anything you find, soft healers first (e.g. Priests, Druids). Lastly, if you are a rogue and you are fighting a paladin while there is a mage, warlock, druid, or priest in the area, smack yourself, hard. Go gank the squishy cloth wearing thing healing/blasting your tanks, then help out on the enemy tank.
Good, take your cheating ass back to CS.
Why in the world would anyone be against anti-cheat programs? I've played CS enough to see people aim-botting and speed hacking regularly. On the other hand, when playing Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory it was rare to see someone whom I could definatly say was cheating. The difference: Punkbuster.
While I'm not a big fan of the way Blizzard went after BNetd, I can sort of see their point. With Battle.net they were able to keep people from using the same CD-Key on several machines, BNetd didn't impliment this. From Blizzards point of view, BNetd was gutting the one control Blizzard had over copyright infringment. Heck, they didn't even try to check CD-keys when you were running a LAN games, so if you really just wanted to use a kengen and a No-CD crack for a few of the players, you could get away with it.
That said I fully support companies building anti-cheating programs into their online games. There are too many cheaters and griefers out there who make the game unplayable for those of us who aren't hardcore players. In CS I was a so-so player, though I can never be sure how much of this was just me sucking and how much was me facing aimbots. In Wolf:ET I was a fairly good player, usually near the top of the standings on any given round, and I know that this was all me. Yes, I did see the occasional cheater on ET, these tended to be the obvious ones (you'd spec them and see their cross-hairs jumping from head to head); but, there were far less than I saw on CS.
Now that I play WoW, I'm glad to see that they have something in there for preventing cheaters. Is it perfect, I doubt it, but, it's better than nothing. I love to go to the battlegrounds, and I would hate to have to deal with cheaters in there, paladins are bad enough (he's almost dead, no wait, he's at full health).
One should certainly be free to say whatever they want; however, they should also realize that they will be held accountable for any harm[1] which that speech brings about. For example, if I started claiming that you were a child rapist, you might end up on the wrong end of an investigation and/or lawsuit. The statement I made was false. And the direct result of that false statement was that you ended up going through a lot of trouble. I have harmed you. I should be responsible for some sort of restitution for the harm I caused you. That is why we have libel/slander laws, to allow a party harmed by malicious false statements to receive some compensation for the harm done to them.
That said, such laws can be abused. Whether the case mentioned in the article is libel or an abuse of such laws to silence critics will be decided by the courts. In all, this seems like a non-issue. Juniper feel's that the statements made about the company fall under libel laws. As such they have filled a lawsuit. Because of the semi-anonymous nature of internet boards they must file a "John Doe" suit. Which is how such things are supposed to work. Now the courts get to decide if Juniper has enough of a case to force the message board operator to divulge the details of its users. If the court feels that standard in not met, they will send Juniper packing.
On the larger question of free speech in general, I think there needs to be a bit of a balance somewhere between "anything you want" and not causing harm. For example, around the begining of the 20th century we had snake-oil salesmen selling concoctions which, they claimed, cured everything from arthritis to the common cold. Not only were all of these claims false, some of the concoctions were dangerous or deadly. As such, truth in advertising and package labaling laws were introduced (along with a host of other reasons). While some might argue that people should just be better consumers, I think it's fairly obvious that no one person can be an expert on every subject. As such, some common rules for advertising are good to keep unscrupulous people from scamming and/or harming other people.
The problem, of course, which this sort of limitation brings about is: where do you draw the line? There is no easy, single, answer for this. Certainly, as the US courts have held for a long time, commercial speech has different standards than anything else. Allowing businesses to lie serves no valid purpose. On the other hand, individuals should be allowed to lie to avoid persecution. (e.g. 1940's Western US. Lying about being of Japaneese ancestry.) Also, social lies tend to be viewed as acceptable, as they prevent conflict. (No one wants to tell a woman she looks bad in a dress.) In the end, it's this grey area that we have handed over to the courts to sort out. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it's about as functional as we have.
[1] I am using "harm" in a general sense, not in a physical sense. i.e. the time and trouble faced by a person defending themselves in a lawsuit is considered "harm".
It would have been nice to see a test case for the DMCA. However, this is going to be settled fast.
From the article: During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox
Even without the DMCA crap, these guys are screwed. Most likely the lawyers for the defendants will settle for a fine and a suspended sentence. Nothing will be tried, and the DMCA will continue to exist as a nice chilling spectre.
Whats that about? I hear about people being threatend and stalked and don't have any recorse. Local police wont do anything, just file a report.
Simple, the people you hear about don't have money or influence, so they just get the standard, "not worth our time" response. Also, there are worlds of difference betweeen "so-and-so said..." and "here's an email that person sent". The main difference being physical proof. I've not read the details of this, considering the only details are the ones Thompson has released, so this may not apply; however, since the police have actually gotten involved, I'll bet on it.
When the PSP released I looked at the launch titles and only found one of any interest. The name escapes me at the moment, but the reviews of it placed it as a stripped down version of Baldur's Gate on the PS2, which was already a pretty lean action-adventure title. The way I saw it, I could spend about $350 for one game. No thanks, I can forgo a half-assed version of a game type I like at that price. Since then, I've not really even looked at what is releasing for the system, nor have I heard from anyone I trust about a "must have" game on the system. I don't travel enough to need a portable DVD player, and if I did, I would buy a laptop. I already have an MP3 player for those times when I want one. I have a computer for browsing the internet. So, why would I possibly want to buy a PSP?
there is no editorial control or standard of any substance. None. Zero.
Nor do they try to hide that fact. Take a good look at any source of information more complex than 2+2=4, you will find some slant in it.
Every entry is free game for someone with a crackpot theory, hidden agenda, or just plain lack of knowledge, to make a modification and have questionable, if not downright wrong, information published without any oversight.
I think you mean paid oversight. In any area which matters, there tends to be a lot of eyes looking at information and either rolling back or fixing content as needed. That's the point of a Wiki, community oversight. Does it work in every case? No, but neither does having a paid editor either (*cough* CBS: GWB's service record *cough*). The fact is, you should never trust a single source of information to be perfect in every case. And that is one of the advantages Wikipedia have going for them, they have no sigle editor to push a bias. Consider for a moment how two different forms of media handle this sort of thing. If the Wall Street Journal makes a mistake (and they do) they publish a retraction burried in the middle of the paper, with little to no fanfare. In the end, most people will never know of the error. On a wikipedia article, it's likely that someone will eventually call bullshit on a mistake and correct it. From that point on, anyone looking at that article will see the corrected information. And, assuming a point is open for debate, you often get both sides of the debate represented, rather than the side the paid editor is on.
Here in this thread everyone is saying, "this is just some old bitter man" or "I bet this guy ought to be looked at." But what if someone put up a web site, or maybe just a Wikipedia article, called, oh let's say - The Iamtherealmikeisarapistandpedophile.com and then made completely unfounded accusations all based on unfounded supposition and unfounded conjectures. What is "Truth", afterall? It's just a relative thing, right? As soon as Iamtherealmike found this information, I have a feeling that his idea of the relativity of truth would disappear and he would be outraged, as anyone accused falsely of heinous criminal acts would be. What is his relief from the lies I wrote and Wikipedia printed?
He would have the same recourse which the article mentioned.
Change the content yourself
Contact the maintainers of Wikipedia and let them know about the problem
If affected party thinks they have a good case for libel, file a "John Doe" lawsuit
I don't think so, and if it was any of you that discovered an article out of the blue accusing you of a crime wouldn't think so, and fortunately enough 500 plus years of law concerning slander back this up. I would have committed slander and I should face trail and be judged and if found guilty I should be punished for my crime.
Agreed.
If Wikipedia was my publisher, they should be tried, judged, and if found guilty punished as well. Otherwise, there is no relief for Iamtherealmike. The article can stay up forever and he has no chance to show it is untrue.
It depends on what you mean by "publisher". Wikipedia, like the phone company, is considered a common carrier. e.g. They neither claim the right nor the responsibility for editing what is posted. To try to force them to do otherwise would be to kill every forum on the internet. For example, I cold make a slanderous post on slashdot, should slashdot be responisible for checking every fact in every post? No, that would create such an undue burden on them. Insted, they take a hands-off approach and just let it go. However, this does not mean that: " Otherwise, there is no relief for Iamtherealmike. The article can stay up forever and he has no chance to show it is untrue." Once a carrier has been informed of the slanderous content, they are required to take it down, oth
Actually, I think all your example does is prove a very simple idea of economics, rather than copyright functioning properly. People value their time, and if the cost of buying an item is less than the percieved cost of that person's time, they will buy the product. As price increses, assuming time to copy does not increse proportionally, the likelyhood of a person just putting in the time to copy it will go up. So, while people may not be clamoring to copy a $15 program, it's not uncommon to find people running unlicensed versions of windows. Heck, software copying is often considered part of the reason for the success of windows. Now, with XP, MS managed to make it a touch harder to copy (not all that much, but some), so more people are willing to buy it.
And, while this would point to the idea that copyright protections do work, there is a bit of a hole in this. The sophistication of users is incresing. Look at the progression of electronics usage into our lives. Most of those who are old enough to fought in WWI have trouble setting the clock on the VCR. Their kids, the "baby-boomers", can usually set the clock, but are not the most savvy computer users. Many Gen X'ers grew up with Atari's and are more capable with technology. Most Gen Y'ers had a computer in their home growing up, and aren't bad with them. The next generation, will almost certainly grow up with a computer, the internet, and who knows what else. They will be even more savvy on average than those of us arguing on/..
Add to that the fact that P2P apps are getting eaiser and eaiser to use, and bandwidth incresing all the time. Downloading, and running a pre-cracked version of an application is getting eaiser and less time consuming.
The net result of all of this is that A) The average User is getting more savvy, B) The time involved to get a cracked version is decresing, C) Copyright software isn't making things any harder on the average user (most of the iso's on P2P networks are either pre-cracked or have a post-install executable to crack it for you.) The cost/benefit ratio which is currently driving sales is tipping dangerously, and will collapse at some point. The result will be either complete market destruction or massive price reductions, litigating is only a stop-gap on the road to one of those two options.
And here is where we get to go back to economics again, and show that they are, in fact, working out quite well. The first option is pretty much a non-option, as long as there is some money to be made, someone will make it. So, the end result will be a reduction in prices. We'll probably also see a number of businesses go under in the process. And this is exactly what is to be expected, when there is a demand for a product and the supply is artificially limited, you can expect that a black market will pop-up; and guess what software piracy is? That black market will do one of tow things: 1) Create a huge downward pressure on a product's price 2) If the product is banned completely the black market will supply the demand and make a ton of money. In the case of software it'll be the first.
The current copyright methodology is in trouble in the case of software. Copying has become easy, is becomming fast, and is becomming socially accepted.
Lockheed, whereas the Patriot is built by Raytheon. Raytheon is the classic example of a large, sloppy, wasteful defense contractor
Don't let them fool you LM is no better. I used to work with the guys they sent to military bases to install security/access control systems. Most of those folks are really nice guys, but when I was helping one of them troubleshoot a problem on the phone I was sorely wishing they would bring in a trained monkey on the other end of the line, at the very least it would follow directions and not argue with me about a system I knew way more about than the installer I was talking to. I'll give them credit, they knew how to get wires run throughout an installation, but putting them in front of anything more complex than a punch-down block was a sure way to get something fucked up, an even the punch-down block was questionable. And talking one of them through SQL commands on a system which was based around an MSSQL database was about as enjoyable as elective dick surgery without anesthetic.
While I don't think we're to the point of needing it yet, the people still have one way to sort things out with a government run amok: start shooting politicians.
While the people probably couldn't win an outright civil war these days, a large enough group determined to harass and disrupt the functioning of the civil government could do a lot of damage. For example, look at the Beltway Sniper a few years back, for a couple weeks he damn near paralyzed DC. Now, make that a group of 10 people, working together to target Senetors/Representatives/President and cabinet members. A lot of damage could be done. If that group is large enough and skilled enough, they could even commit attacks on government buildings, ala Timothy McVeigh. Eventually, they would probably be hunted down, tried, and executed; however, in a short time they could force a change in government.
Of course, the level of tyrany to which the government would have to achieve, to cause enough people to be willing to do this, is hopefully way beyond our current level. One can hope that people do start waking up to the problems of incresed survellience, and use the built in voting system to force change.
Why memorize when you can just put an entry in your HOSTS file and be done with it? I've been using this for years to blackhole domains I don't want to see (doubleclick.com, etc). It can be done in reverse just as easily, just find the IP of said porn server, put an entry in your hosts file like:
1.2.3.4porn.fun
And you can now go to http://porn.fun/ for all of your porn needs.
On top of this, have none of these "technology businessmen" ever heard of proxies? It would be trivial for me to setup a proxy server at home, which I can browse to on port 80, and then have it send request on to wherever I want it to. Worse, I would expect that we'll see a bunch of these pop up after this sort of thing is enacted. Heck, you might be able to make money off this sort of thing.
Setup a port 80 proxy
Sell access
??? - Afterall, the last thing you would want is logs for the FBI/CIA/Stazi to seize
Profit!!!
Either way, this CP80 idea is just as stupid as anything you'd expect from people associated with SCO.
I wonder, how does the BAR association view slander? I mean, Thompson has quite clearly accused this judge of violating the ethics code of judges, that would seem, to my non-lawyer eye, to have the appearnce of slanderig the judge; unless, of course, Thompson can actually prove that claim, or show that it was intended as an opinion and not ment to cause harm.
If distributing the rootkit was a criminal offense, it would be the people who put the rootkit on the CD who'd be more liable. Like, *writing* a virus isn't an offense (that I know of), but distributing it is.
I think it will be more convoluted than this. For example, all the people who opened emails with the subject "I love you" after it was widely known that no one really loved them; were not liable for the damaged caused to the people who received another iteration of the worm. The reason being that, they could not be reasonably expected to know better than to open that email.
In the case of Sony, I would think that would be able to claim ignorance of the copyright violation, as they didn't have access to the source code. And, given the idea of the "reasonable man" test, I would think that they could show that a reasonable person would assume that a company selling such software was doing so in good faith, and without any sort of copyright violation attached. Consider the implications if it is found otherwise. If, for example, I created a piece of software which had a copyright violation in it, and gave you a copy, with the right to pass it out to your friends; if you started handing it out to friends, you would be liable for my actions. The idea is simply ludicrious.
Now, as for installing a rootkit, knowingly, ya, hopefully they will get nailed to the wall.
Which just makes it funnier. California's lawmakers have their lips so far up the asses of the entertainment industry, it could technically be classified as kissing on the lips. Of course, California is also one of the more consumer friendly states in the union, so maybe this is to be expected. Still, I can't help but expect that our legislature will see this and pass a law exempting the entertainment industry from liability if they screw your computer, delete your files, rape your sister, in the attempt to stop piracy.
That stuff doesn't always stay in the same lane as the vehicle dropping it. If I am legally passing them on the left, and a rock comes off and hits my windshield, you better bet I'm going to get a license plate number and get the truck's insurance company to pay for a new windshield.
In California (yes, we're a screwed up state, but it looks like our AG got one right finally.) If you hit your brakes hard and the person behind you rear-ends you, you can be found at fault for "brake-checking". Fortunatly, the way I know about this is that an officer was kind enough to tell my wife about it after she had been in an rear-end accident, she was found not at fault, but the officer did mention it as a possibility.
I'm also married to a gamer chick. And ya, the same reasons make it really nice. When I go play pen and paper RPG's (still manage to play once in a while) She isn't calling me at 3am wondering where I am, she's sitting next to me rolling her dice as she takes down another orc. This weekend she wasn't complaining to me that I played WoW all weekend, she was playing right next to me on her own computer (in fact, she's the one who talked me into playing).
Being married to a gamer chick is the best way to still be a gamer after marriage. Plus, it gives you something in common, rather than a fighting point.
Actually, the this fun part is from section 3: Upon the expiration or termination of this EULA, you shall immediately remove all of the LICENSED MATERIALS from your personal computer system and delete or destroy them, along with any related documentation (and any copies thereof) that you may have received or otherwise may possess
So, pretty much what they want me to do is, if I decide to terminate the agreement I have to re-format my system.
I doubt it would get rid of all of them, but it should prevent the vast majority should it not?
Not really. With the windows installer, you can check to see if you have admin rights during the install. If you don't you just ask the user to provide a username/password pair for an admin account so that the install can continue. Since the user wants to use your application they will provide the necessary username/password.
It might stop some of the remote IE exploits, but even then I would doubt it. As always the weakest link in security is usually the interface between the chair and the keyboard.
I would bet that, when you install their player, the EULA has a line in it about Sony, or whoever, not being responsible for and damage caused to your machine. e.g. A general "not our fault" clause. And once you click "I agree" you've pretty much let them off the hook. Granted, you might be able to get a judge to throw that part of the EULA out, or might even get this piece of software exempted from that clause, since they knowingly are damaging part of your system, but you'd be in for a long legal fight.
A 200MHz running some flavor of Linux, with no GUI makes a great router and/or file/print server. Granted, you can often piggy back the fire/print functions onto another server, but if you are looking to save a few bucks here and there it could be worth it. Also, if you don't have other functions to worry about (e.g. you outsource your web presence and rely on an ISP's e-mail server. This happens for small businesses), it prevents you needing to go through more capital expense. Also, if you are a small enough company, which doesn't have a large volume of e-mail, that same 200MHz system may work just fine as a light-weight e-mail server. As a small business you often don't need the biggest, baddest hardware to run many of the functions you intend to use a server for. It is better to re-use where possible, and buy cheaper, slower equipment when it will do the job as effectivly.
That's not uncommon. When a company doesn't want to carry/sell a product, instead of saying no, they just price themselves out of the market. That way: a) The customer never hears a, "no", which is something to avoid. b) If someone actually does buy from you at that price, what the hell, you made a buttload.
I ran into this on my home printer. I bought an HP 2550 printer (for doing all of the printing for my wedding). It comes standard with 64MB of RAM. This is plenty until you start sending graphics to the printer. So to stop the "Out of Memory" errors, I decided to upgrade the memory. The printer would handle an extra 128MB SODIMM.
Price from HP: US$800
My response: Bullshit!
Price from Kingston: US$50
And, it only took me moments to find the right part with Kingston's website (they have a really nice memory finder). Also, Kingston offers a lifetime warranty and puts out a solid product, so no worries about a fly by night company.
So, in the end, I got what I wanted and HP got to stay out of the memory business, without ever explicitly telling me "no".
How would they stop them? Uhhh, it's a violation of the EULA to sell mods.
Considering that EA releases tools directly to do modding on The Sims, I highly doubt it against the EULA to make mods. There may be some argument about selling them, but that would be near impossible to enforce, and probably tossed out in court very quickly. Besides which, most of the "nude" mods are released for free.
They also happen to be advertising these mods by using The Sims trademark.
And? It isn't trademark infringement for me to say that my product interacts with someone else's product. I'll need to have a disclaimer somewhere which states that I am not affiliated with them and that the trademarks are wholly owned by the other company, but I can still name them by name.
The fact that EA isn't defending their trademark will probably get them into serious trouble with their shareholders anyway.
I think their shareholders would be happy that the company isn't throwning money away fighting frivilous lawsuits, and possible opening itself up to counter-suits. There really isn't anything actionable about parody mods. Disney has been fighting parodies for a long time, and lost at every turn. If Disney can't win, do you really think EA is going to fare any better? Parody, even that which is sexual in nature, has a history of being protected speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the reason Paladins complain about their damage is that they are slow to kill stuff while soloing on PvE type stuff. They probably haven't spent much time in BG or just don't realize how powerful their defensive stuff makes them.
As an example, I spent a bunch of time in Warson Gulch, and I play horde. The alliance tends to have a paladin grab the flag and run with it. The reason for this is that a good paladin needs almost no cover. I've seen lone paladins with half a dozen horde players chasing them down make it all the way across the map with the flag. The reason is that they are nearly impossible to kill, especially if they have good equipment and potions. Hence the reason horde players complain about Paladins.
Honestly though, I don't think they really needed to revamp them much. Yes, they were a bitch to drop, but it could be done if the horde players were smart. Tip for horde players: if the paladin isn't dying, stop trying to kill him and look for another healer. Most of the time there will be a priest or druid giving him a bit of healing help, drop that assistance first, and the paladin usually becomes hard to kill, as opposed to impossible. Also, don't try to solo kill a paladin, unless you have several levels on him. Moreover, if you are in the BG stay with the group, and team up on anything you find, soft healers first (e.g. Priests, Druids). Lastly, if you are a rogue and you are fighting a paladin while there is a mage, warlock, druid, or priest in the area, smack yourself, hard. Go gank the squishy cloth wearing thing healing/blasting your tanks, then help out on the enemy tank.
Good, take your cheating ass back to CS.
Why in the world would anyone be against anti-cheat programs? I've played CS enough to see people aim-botting and speed hacking regularly. On the other hand, when playing Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory it was rare to see someone whom I could definatly say was cheating. The difference: Punkbuster.
While I'm not a big fan of the way Blizzard went after BNetd, I can sort of see their point. With Battle.net they were able to keep people from using the same CD-Key on several machines, BNetd didn't impliment this. From Blizzards point of view, BNetd was gutting the one control Blizzard had over copyright infringment. Heck, they didn't even try to check CD-keys when you were running a LAN games, so if you really just wanted to use a kengen and a No-CD crack for a few of the players, you could get away with it.
That said I fully support companies building anti-cheating programs into their online games. There are too many cheaters and griefers out there who make the game unplayable for those of us who aren't hardcore players. In CS I was a so-so player, though I can never be sure how much of this was just me sucking and how much was me facing aimbots. In Wolf:ET I was a fairly good player, usually near the top of the standings on any given round, and I know that this was all me. Yes, I did see the occasional cheater on ET, these tended to be the obvious ones (you'd spec them and see their cross-hairs jumping from head to head); but, there were far less than I saw on CS.
Now that I play WoW, I'm glad to see that they have something in there for preventing cheaters. Is it perfect, I doubt it, but, it's better than nothing. I love to go to the battlegrounds, and I would hate to have to deal with cheaters in there, paladins are bad enough (he's almost dead, no wait, he's at full health).
Power to the Forsaken!
One should certainly be free to say whatever they want; however, they should also realize that they will be held accountable for any harm[1] which that speech brings about. For example, if I started claiming that you were a child rapist, you might end up on the wrong end of an investigation and/or lawsuit. The statement I made was false. And the direct result of that false statement was that you ended up going through a lot of trouble. I have harmed you. I should be responsible for some sort of restitution for the harm I caused you. That is why we have libel/slander laws, to allow a party harmed by malicious false statements to receive some compensation for the harm done to them.
That said, such laws can be abused. Whether the case mentioned in the article is libel or an abuse of such laws to silence critics will be decided by the courts. In all, this seems like a non-issue. Juniper feel's that the statements made about the company fall under libel laws. As such they have filled a lawsuit. Because of the semi-anonymous nature of internet boards they must file a "John Doe" suit. Which is how such things are supposed to work. Now the courts get to decide if Juniper has enough of a case to force the message board operator to divulge the details of its users. If the court feels that standard in not met, they will send Juniper packing.
On the larger question of free speech in general, I think there needs to be a bit of a balance somewhere between "anything you want" and not causing harm. For example, around the begining of the 20th century we had snake-oil salesmen selling concoctions which, they claimed, cured everything from arthritis to the common cold. Not only were all of these claims false, some of the concoctions were dangerous or deadly. As such, truth in advertising and package labaling laws were introduced (along with a host of other reasons). While some might argue that people should just be better consumers, I think it's fairly obvious that no one person can be an expert on every subject. As such, some common rules for advertising are good to keep unscrupulous people from scamming and/or harming other people.
The problem, of course, which this sort of limitation brings about is: where do you draw the line? There is no easy, single, answer for this. Certainly, as the US courts have held for a long time, commercial speech has different standards than anything else. Allowing businesses to lie serves no valid purpose. On the other hand, individuals should be allowed to lie to avoid persecution. (e.g. 1940's Western US. Lying about being of Japaneese ancestry.) Also, social lies tend to be viewed as acceptable, as they prevent conflict. (No one wants to tell a woman she looks bad in a dress.) In the end, it's this grey area that we have handed over to the courts to sort out. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it's about as functional as we have.
[1] I am using "harm" in a general sense, not in a physical sense. i.e. the time and trouble faced by a person defending themselves in a lawsuit is considered "harm".
It would have been nice to see a test case for the DMCA. However, this is going to be settled fast.
From the article:
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox
Even without the DMCA crap, these guys are screwed. Most likely the lawyers for the defendants will settle for a fine and a suspended sentence. Nothing will be tried, and the DMCA will continue to exist as a nice chilling spectre.
Personal favorite: ... Number 3, in a quantum finish."
Speaker: "And the winner is
Farnsworth: "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
Whats that about? I hear about people being threatend and stalked and don't have any recorse. Local police wont do anything, just file a report.
Simple, the people you hear about don't have money or influence, so they just get the standard, "not worth our time" response. Also, there are worlds of difference betweeen "so-and-so said..." and "here's an email that person sent". The main difference being physical proof. I've not read the details of this, considering the only details are the ones Thompson has released, so this may not apply; however, since the police have actually gotten involved, I'll bet on it.
When the PSP released I looked at the launch titles and only found one of any interest. The name escapes me at the moment, but the reviews of it placed it as a stripped down version of Baldur's Gate on the PS2, which was already a pretty lean action-adventure title. The way I saw it, I could spend about $350 for one game. No thanks, I can forgo a half-assed version of a game type I like at that price. Since then, I've not really even looked at what is releasing for the system, nor have I heard from anyone I trust about a "must have" game on the system. I don't travel enough to need a portable DVD player, and if I did, I would buy a laptop. I already have an MP3 player for those times when I want one. I have a computer for browsing the internet. So, why would I possibly want to buy a PSP?
there is no editorial control or standard of any substance. None. Zero.
Nor do they try to hide that fact. Take a good look at any source of information more complex than 2+2=4, you will find some slant in it.
Every entry is free game for someone with a crackpot theory, hidden agenda, or just plain lack of knowledge, to make a modification and have questionable, if not downright wrong, information published without any oversight.
I think you mean paid oversight. In any area which matters, there tends to be a lot of eyes looking at information and either rolling back or fixing content as needed. That's the point of a Wiki, community oversight. Does it work in every case? No, but neither does having a paid editor either (*cough* CBS: GWB's service record *cough*). The fact is, you should never trust a single source of information to be perfect in every case. And that is one of the advantages Wikipedia have going for them, they have no sigle editor to push a bias. Consider for a moment how two different forms of media handle this sort of thing. If the Wall Street Journal makes a mistake (and they do) they publish a retraction burried in the middle of the paper, with little to no fanfare. In the end, most people will never know of the error. On a wikipedia article, it's likely that someone will eventually call bullshit on a mistake and correct it. From that point on, anyone looking at that article will see the corrected information. And, assuming a point is open for debate, you often get both sides of the debate represented, rather than the side the paid editor is on.
Here in this thread everyone is saying, "this is just some old bitter man" or "I bet this guy ought to be looked at." But what if someone put up a web site, or maybe just a Wikipedia article, called, oh let's say - The Iamtherealmikeisarapistandpedophile.com and then made completely unfounded accusations all based on unfounded supposition and unfounded conjectures. What is "Truth", afterall? It's just a relative thing, right? As soon as Iamtherealmike found this information, I have a feeling that his idea of the relativity of truth would disappear and he would be outraged, as anyone accused falsely of heinous criminal acts would be. What is his relief from the lies I wrote and Wikipedia printed?
He would have the same recourse which the article mentioned.
I don't think so, and if it was any of you that discovered an article out of the blue accusing you of a crime wouldn't think so, and fortunately enough 500 plus years of law concerning slander back this up. I would have committed slander and I should face trail and be judged and if found guilty I should be punished for my crime.
Agreed.
If Wikipedia was my publisher, they should be tried, judged, and if found guilty punished as well. Otherwise, there is no relief for Iamtherealmike. The article can stay up forever and he has no chance to show it is untrue.
It depends on what you mean by "publisher". Wikipedia, like the phone company, is considered a common carrier. e.g. They neither claim the right nor the responsibility for editing what is posted. To try to force them to do otherwise would be to kill every forum on the internet. For example, I cold make a slanderous post on slashdot, should slashdot be responisible for checking every fact in every post? No, that would create such an undue burden on them. Insted, they take a hands-off approach and just let it go. However, this does not mean that: " Otherwise, there is no relief for Iamtherealmike. The article can stay up forever and he has no chance to show it is untrue." Once a carrier has been informed of the slanderous content, they are required to take it down, oth
Actually, I think all your example does is prove a very simple idea of economics, rather than copyright functioning properly. People value their time, and if the cost of buying an item is less than the percieved cost of that person's time, they will buy the product. As price increses, assuming time to copy does not increse proportionally, the likelyhood of a person just putting in the time to copy it will go up. So, while people may not be clamoring to copy a $15 program, it's not uncommon to find people running unlicensed versions of windows. Heck, software copying is often considered part of the reason for the success of windows. Now, with XP, MS managed to make it a touch harder to copy (not all that much, but some), so more people are willing to buy it. /..
And, while this would point to the idea that copyright protections do work, there is a bit of a hole in this. The sophistication of users is incresing. Look at the progression of electronics usage into our lives. Most of those who are old enough to fought in WWI have trouble setting the clock on the VCR. Their kids, the "baby-boomers", can usually set the clock, but are not the most savvy computer users. Many Gen X'ers grew up with Atari's and are more capable with technology. Most Gen Y'ers had a computer in their home growing up, and aren't bad with them. The next generation, will almost certainly grow up with a computer, the internet, and who knows what else. They will be even more savvy on average than those of us arguing on
Add to that the fact that P2P apps are getting eaiser and eaiser to use, and bandwidth incresing all the time. Downloading, and running a pre-cracked version of an application is getting eaiser and less time consuming.
The net result of all of this is that A) The average User is getting more savvy, B) The time involved to get a cracked version is decresing, C) Copyright software isn't making things any harder on the average user (most of the iso's on P2P networks are either pre-cracked or have a post-install executable to crack it for you.) The cost/benefit ratio which is currently driving sales is tipping dangerously, and will collapse at some point. The result will be either complete market destruction or massive price reductions, litigating is only a stop-gap on the road to one of those two options.
And here is where we get to go back to economics again, and show that they are, in fact, working out quite well. The first option is pretty much a non-option, as long as there is some money to be made, someone will make it. So, the end result will be a reduction in prices. We'll probably also see a number of businesses go under in the process. And this is exactly what is to be expected, when there is a demand for a product and the supply is artificially limited, you can expect that a black market will pop-up; and guess what software piracy is? That black market will do one of tow things: 1) Create a huge downward pressure on a product's price 2) If the product is banned completely the black market will supply the demand and make a ton of money. In the case of software it'll be the first.
The current copyright methodology is in trouble in the case of software. Copying has become easy, is becomming fast, and is becomming socially accepted.
Lockheed, whereas the Patriot is built by Raytheon. Raytheon is the classic example of a large, sloppy, wasteful defense contractor
Don't let them fool you LM is no better. I used to work with the guys they sent to military bases to install security/access control systems. Most of those folks are really nice guys, but when I was helping one of them troubleshoot a problem on the phone I was sorely wishing they would bring in a trained monkey on the other end of the line, at the very least it would follow directions and not argue with me about a system I knew way more about than the installer I was talking to. I'll give them credit, they knew how to get wires run throughout an installation, but putting them in front of anything more complex than a punch-down block was a sure way to get something fucked up, an even the punch-down block was questionable. And talking one of them through SQL commands on a system which was based around an MSSQL database was about as enjoyable as elective dick surgery without anesthetic.
What recourse do the citizens have?
While I don't think we're to the point of needing it yet, the people still have one way to sort things out with a government run amok: start shooting politicians.
While the people probably couldn't win an outright civil war these days, a large enough group determined to harass and disrupt the functioning of the civil government could do a lot of damage. For example, look at the Beltway Sniper a few years back, for a couple weeks he damn near paralyzed DC. Now, make that a group of 10 people, working together to target Senetors/Representatives/President and cabinet members. A lot of damage could be done. If that group is large enough and skilled enough, they could even commit attacks on government buildings, ala Timothy McVeigh. Eventually, they would probably be hunted down, tried, and executed; however, in a short time they could force a change in government.
Of course, the level of tyrany to which the government would have to achieve, to cause enough people to be willing to do this, is hopefully way beyond our current level. One can hope that people do start waking up to the problems of incresed survellience, and use the built in voting system to force change.
1.2.3.4porn.fun
And you can now go to http://porn.fun/ for all of your porn needs.
On top of this, have none of these "technology businessmen" ever heard of proxies? It would be trivial for me to setup a proxy server at home, which I can browse to on port 80, and then have it send request on to wherever I want it to. Worse, I would expect that we'll see a bunch of these pop up after this sort of thing is enacted. Heck, you might be able to make money off this sort of thing.
- Setup a port 80 proxy
- Sell access
- ??? - Afterall, the last thing you would want is logs for the FBI/CIA/Stazi to seize
- Profit!!!
Either way, this CP80 idea is just as stupid as anything you'd expect from people associated with SCO.I wonder, how does the BAR association view slander? I mean, Thompson has quite clearly accused this judge of violating the ethics code of judges, that would seem, to my non-lawyer eye, to have the appearnce of slanderig the judge; unless, of course, Thompson can actually prove that claim, or show that it was intended as an opinion and not ment to cause harm.
violent games "have no place in Germany's bedrooms."
Scat porn on the other hand seems to be just fine.
If distributing the rootkit was a criminal offense, it would be the people who put the rootkit on the CD who'd be more liable. Like, *writing* a virus isn't an offense (that I know of), but distributing it is.
I think it will be more convoluted than this. For example, all the people who opened emails with the subject "I love you" after it was widely known that no one really loved them; were not liable for the damaged caused to the people who received another iteration of the worm. The reason being that, they could not be reasonably expected to know better than to open that email.
In the case of Sony, I would think that would be able to claim ignorance of the copyright violation, as they didn't have access to the source code. And, given the idea of the "reasonable man" test, I would think that they could show that a reasonable person would assume that a company selling such software was doing so in good faith, and without any sort of copyright violation attached. Consider the implications if it is found otherwise. If, for example, I created a piece of software which had a copyright violation in it, and gave you a copy, with the right to pass it out to your friends; if you started handing it out to friends, you would be liable for my actions. The idea is simply ludicrious.
Now, as for installing a rootkit, knowingly, ya, hopefully they will get nailed to the wall.
Which just makes it funnier. California's lawmakers have their lips so far up the asses of the entertainment industry, it could technically be classified as kissing on the lips. Of course, California is also one of the more consumer friendly states in the union, so maybe this is to be expected. Still, I can't help but expect that our legislature will see this and pass a law exempting the entertainment industry from liability if they screw your computer, delete your files, rape your sister, in the attempt to stop piracy.
That stuff doesn't always stay in the same lane as the vehicle dropping it. If I am legally passing them on the left, and a rock comes off and hits my windshield, you better bet I'm going to get a license plate number and get the truck's insurance company to pay for a new windshield.
In California (yes, we're a screwed up state, but it looks like our AG got one right finally.) If you hit your brakes hard and the person behind you rear-ends you, you can be found at fault for "brake-checking". Fortunatly, the way I know about this is that an officer was kind enough to tell my wife about it after she had been in an rear-end accident, she was found not at fault, but the officer did mention it as a possibility.
I'm also married to a gamer chick. And ya, the same reasons make it really nice. When I go play pen and paper RPG's (still manage to play once in a while) She isn't calling me at 3am wondering where I am, she's sitting next to me rolling her dice as she takes down another orc. This weekend she wasn't complaining to me that I played WoW all weekend, she was playing right next to me on her own computer (in fact, she's the one who talked me into playing).
Being married to a gamer chick is the best way to still be a gamer after marriage. Plus, it gives you something in common, rather than a fighting point.
Actually, the this fun part is from section 3:
Upon the expiration or termination of this EULA, you shall immediately remove all of the LICENSED MATERIALS from your personal computer system and delete or destroy them, along with any related documentation (and any copies thereof) that you may have received or otherwise may possess
So, pretty much what they want me to do is, if I decide to terminate the agreement I have to re-format my system.
I doubt it would get rid of all of them, but it should prevent the vast majority should it not?
Not really. With the windows installer, you can check to see if you have admin rights during the install. If you don't you just ask the user to provide a username/password pair for an admin account so that the install can continue. Since the user wants to use your application they will provide the necessary username/password.
It might stop some of the remote IE exploits, but even then I would doubt it. As always the weakest link in security is usually the interface between the chair and the keyboard.
I would bet that, when you install their player, the EULA has a line in it about Sony, or whoever, not being responsible for and damage caused to your machine. e.g. A general "not our fault" clause. And once you click "I agree" you've pretty much let them off the hook. Granted, you might be able to get a judge to throw that part of the EULA out, or might even get this piece of software exempted from that clause, since they knowingly are damaging part of your system, but you'd be in for a long legal fight.
A 200MHz running some flavor of Linux, with no GUI makes a great router and/or file/print server. Granted, you can often piggy back the fire/print functions onto another server, but if you are looking to save a few bucks here and there it could be worth it. Also, if you don't have other functions to worry about (e.g. you outsource your web presence and rely on an ISP's e-mail server. This happens for small businesses), it prevents you needing to go through more capital expense. Also, if you are a small enough company, which doesn't have a large volume of e-mail, that same 200MHz system may work just fine as a light-weight e-mail server. As a small business you often don't need the biggest, baddest hardware to run many of the functions you intend to use a server for. It is better to re-use where possible, and buy cheaper, slower equipment when it will do the job as effectivly.
That's not uncommon. When a company doesn't want to carry/sell a product, instead of saying no, they just price themselves out of the market. That way: a) The customer never hears a, "no", which is something to avoid. b) If someone actually does buy from you at that price, what the hell, you made a buttload.
I ran into this on my home printer. I bought an HP 2550 printer (for doing all of the printing for my wedding). It comes standard with 64MB of RAM. This is plenty until you start sending graphics to the printer. So to stop the "Out of Memory" errors, I decided to upgrade the memory. The printer would handle an extra 128MB SODIMM.
Price from HP: US$800
My response: Bullshit!
Price from Kingston: US$50
And, it only took me moments to find the right part with Kingston's website (they have a really nice memory finder). Also, Kingston offers a lifetime warranty and puts out a solid product, so no worries about a fly by night company.
So, in the end, I got what I wanted and HP got to stay out of the memory business, without ever explicitly telling me "no".
I'm not going to link to porn sites on Slashdot.
You're probably the first, but I'll respect that.
How would they stop them? Uhhh, it's a violation of the EULA to sell mods.
Considering that EA releases tools directly to do modding on The Sims, I highly doubt it against the EULA to make mods. There may be some argument about selling them, but that would be near impossible to enforce, and probably tossed out in court very quickly. Besides which, most of the "nude" mods are released for free.
They also happen to be advertising these mods by using The Sims trademark.
And? It isn't trademark infringement for me to say that my product interacts with someone else's product. I'll need to have a disclaimer somewhere which states that I am not affiliated with them and that the trademarks are wholly owned by the other company, but I can still name them by name.
The fact that EA isn't defending their trademark will probably get them into serious trouble with their shareholders anyway.
I think their shareholders would be happy that the company isn't throwning money away fighting frivilous lawsuits, and possible opening itself up to counter-suits. There really isn't anything actionable about parody mods. Disney has been fighting parodies for a long time, and lost at every turn. If Disney can't win, do you really think EA is going to fare any better? Parody, even that which is sexual in nature, has a history of being protected speech.