"Thats 21TB for a standard-length movie! ~21,000GB! Foly Huck!"
I remember thinking 'Foly Huck!' when talk of CD-ROMs were holding 650 meg of data. Back then a big hard drive was a whopping 40 megs. Now I think CDs are so miniscule. I'm guessing in a decade or so 21 terrabytes will be like what a gig is today. Not that I did any real math to arrive at that conclusion, but man, as the years go by, it's amazing what storage capacities turn into.
In any event, that's uncompressed. With compression (which is quite inevitable) that'll drop anywhere from 10:1 to 100:1. In the extreme case, 210GB doesn't sound so bad. 5 years from now or so we'll have HDs that'll handle that fairly easily.
"You are using false logic. Just because some pirated keys are, it does not mean ALL are. It does further not mean that pirtaed games equals blacklisted ones. In addition, non pirtaed games can for example also be pirated."
OOooookay. So even though they're preventing keys that are known to be pirated from being played on battle.net... Yeesh, speaking of false logic. What's really amusing about this is that battle.net made it possible to find pirated keys. "WTF? There have been 1,000 connections using this key from all over the country!" Heh.
" Do you say that since Blizzard offer an online service to match people up for games, no one else should be allowed to?"
Nope. I've already stated what I think.
"No, I am not missing it, they have blacklisted many keys, some "pirated", some not at all. There are many "pirated" keys used, including on battle.net still. So what is your point? "
They very specifically blacklisted pirated keys. Copy.... protection. BNetD did not blacklist keys. Copy... circumvention. Point... clear... as crystal.... Duh.
" what does it have to do with what others offer?"
Copy protection brokie.
"I must assume that you simply is against competition."
Heh. Look man, it's plainly clear that your argument is crumbling, so you're hoping to 'win' by drawing me into an argument about my views or whatever. I don't feel like playing that right now. It's bad enough that you're being willfully ignorant to maintain your view, it's another thing altogether to waste my time with cheap attempts to make me look like a bad person. "Well.. my argument is correct if you really really narrow down the conditions, stretch the truth, close one eye, and interpret things in a surreal way. Besides, you're pro child slavery!!"
"I suspect a fair number of google hating IP goes to MS VARs, partners or Redmond."
I can't speak for the rest of the 'Google Haters', but I think I've probably been labeled as one by now. It is common for people to be characterized/stereotyped/grouped into simple simple names. I don't hate Google, but I have expressed caution at their growth. The bigger they get, the more money they need. The more money they need, the greater the likelihood they'll do something the average Slashdotter will describe as 'evil'.
This sort of cautionary tale does not require hatred of Google or love of Microsoft. Google has services a lot of us rely on. Google makes money from advertising. Google has competition. Google had stockholders who want money. Amazingly, lots of people around here are grabbing their ankles over Google without a care in the world. For all the 'sky is falling!' preminitions around here, that one just simply went through.
In any event, don't assume I hate Google or love Microsoft or pop a woody over karma, I'm just suggesting you cover your ass.
I imagine it won't be much longer before it becomes fashionable to hate Google around here. Judging from your post and the subsequent moderation to it, it's already started to happen.
That's not to say I think your concern is unfounded. Actually I agree with you. I still can't believe how often I hear their corporate tag-line parroted any time somebody criticizes Google's growth. "Google's getting pretty big!""Yeah but they do no evil!" Heh.
"When hell hounds earth, I bet I won't be invited on the vessel out; why should I as a taxpayer have to fund this ludicrous idea of transplanting 'humanity' to another planet?"
A. Because it would be the sort of forward thinking move that would make it virtually impossible (improbable?) for the human race to go extinct.
B. When any of what I mentioned happens, if it happens, you're shit out of luck. When we can transplant humanity, you'll have at least a chance of going somewhere safe. The more work that's done, the more people that can be sent, etc.
C. They care quite a bit about the planet. But besides the potential tragedies I described, there's also the matter that we'll eventually run out of resources. We'll need to go get more. 'Caring' and recycling will only go so far.
A much better question is: "Why wouldn't we want to plant the seeds to ensure the long term survival of our species?"
Because a tiny tiny fraction of people use it as a desktop OS?
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
I think it's generally assumed that one says Linux in this context, they're referring to every distro of Linux out there. In this more particular case, they're talking about desktop machines and not servers.
"...and I am personally offended that you post a trite, mocking comment regarding something that I and thousands others have worked hard on the past 10-15 years."
"Beware, one of the banner advertiser on that page (netshelter.net) is trying to buffer overflow with strangely crafted cookie. Hope you do not run your Firefox on Windows..."
It didn't start that way. The first movie was not only far from a guaranteed success, but they didn't even have merchandising for the Christmas season.
"Then you should have writte so instead of continously thoughtout every post (including the first one) arguing about circumvention of copy protection when there is no such thing."
I'm not backing down on that. I don't know if they broke the DMCA or not. They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line. Indisputable. Sorry.
" The protection you talk about, your CD-keys ONLY controls ACCESS to battle.net, it does NOT conrol COPYING of the game and it does NOT control online play in general."
For all practical purposes, it most certainly does prevent on-line play. Newer releases of Star Craft, for example, rejected black-listed keys during install. Copy protection.
"How is it worthless? It is completely and fully functional and working in all possible ways!!! You could in fact even play with it on battle.net (although not at the same time as anyone else using the same CD-key). But the same can be said with the original in fact. So I fail to see your "worthlessness"."
Blacklist. No battle.net. Worthless. That's why BNetD was created in the first place.
"The improtance of the online is irellevant. The relevant things is what the protection protects, and if it is circumvented when someone uses bnetd."
Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the DMCA here. I don't think it was properly used. I'm not talking about copyrights, I'm talking about whether or not copy protection was circumvented. It was circumvented. Illegally attained games could not connect to battle.net, but they could be connected to BNetD. If you don't like the word 'circumvented' fine, I don't care, you can have that. My point was that BNetD wasn't guily of violating the DMCA. My point was those idiots bypassed a system Blizzard had in place to keep the copies played legit. I don't feel sorry for them for kicking Blizzard in the butt, giving them the raspberry, then suddenly finding themselves in court. It should never have happened in the first place.
"Microsoft gets to eat it's own medicine. Maybe they'll start to realize how bad software patents really are."
Quite the contrary. With that much money at stake, they'll have incentive to patent even more silly stuff. It has two uses: 1.) Sue the crap out of somebody who infringes 2.) Threaten to countersue if they're sued for infringement.
I know quite a few people around here were hoping MS would lose this case, but the reality is that by setting this precedent, it may have done more harm than good.
"That is, what work (that is protected) would you not be able to access or copy and so , in case you had not had bnetd?"
Playing on-line.
"What does that have to do with bnetd?"
The key appeal of their games was playing on-line. That was the reason to play the game. Few people bought that game so they could play the one-player mode. It's like protecting a bicycle from being stolen by removing its seat. Sure, the bike can still be stolen, but who wants a pole up their butt?
"No, it is acces protection of battle.net. You can copy the game just as easy if the cd-key is blacklisted or not."
If you cannot play the copy on-line, then for most people, it's totally worthless. Again, this is a very simple easy-to-understand premise. Yes, the CD key was copy protection. You can spin it any way you want, the end result was that the game was harder to pirate as a result of Battle Net + CD Keys. Then BNetD came along and gave value to those pirated keys. They.... enabled.... piraaaaaaaaaacy.
"If it were copy protection, you would not be able to copy it to start with."
Right. A worthless copy was made. That's successful copy protection.
"Since you both can't connect to battle.net, it is acces protection for BATTLE.NET (nothing else). "
Heh. Nothing else? They blacklisted widely pirated keys. Doh. What's really amusing about this comment is the idea that Blizzard would say "OKay, make sure this system ONLY and I mean ONLY prevents duplicate keys from being accessed at the same time. Do NOT enforce copy protection in any way with it." Oh, by the way, they actually did blacklist a number of pirated keys. Your claim of 'nothing else' is factually false.
"DUH! How many ways does this have to be phrased for you to get this extraordinarily simple concept?"
It'd help if you could make this statement without intentionally ignoring the on-line importance of Blizzard's games.
Oh brother. Is it really so fashionable to hate Blizzard around here that people are willing to throw common sense out the window to try to win on pedantic terms?
It was copy protection. Plain and simple. Inarguable. Online play is the main attraction of their games. They provided the service for playing online. They blacklisted pirated keys. This prevented illegal copies from being played online (before BNetD). This is copy protection. It protected the game from illegal copies being used on-line. Copies that were illegal were not allowed to play. Illegal copies could not be played on Battle Net. Not legal could copies pirated be. How many ways does this have to be phrased for the thicker people to get this extraordinarily simple concept? If I copied the game, gave it to a friend, and he used my code, and we used it at the same time, one of us would get booted. Copy.... protection... D U H.
How much lower are you going to sink in order to paint Blizzard as the bad guy here?
"It doesn't affect the ability to copy any game (or play it) nor does it affect anything that controls the copying or access of the game."
Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys so they couldn't be used on Battle Net. Yes, it was copy protection, and yes BNetD circumvented it, and yes they were irritatingly stupid for getting themselves into that trouble.
"does this result in people being more or less informed? Or are people fooling themselves if they believe that they are well informed by either source?"
That depends... are we talking about Slashdotters here?
" Blizzard took these guys to court for reverse engineering and creating a Battle.Net client."
Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme. I'm supposed to boycott Blizzard even though these guys had absolutely no reason to act surprised for both being sued and losing the case.
Slashdot Mirror
"Thats 21TB for a standard-length movie! ~21,000GB! Foly Huck!"
I remember thinking 'Foly Huck!' when talk of CD-ROMs were holding 650 meg of data. Back then a big hard drive was a whopping 40 megs. Now I think CDs are so miniscule. I'm guessing in a decade or so 21 terrabytes will be like what a gig is today. Not that I did any real math to arrive at that conclusion, but man, as the years go by, it's amazing what storage capacities turn into.
In any event, that's uncompressed. With compression (which is quite inevitable) that'll drop anywhere from 10:1 to 100:1. In the extreme case, 210GB doesn't sound so bad. 5 years from now or so we'll have HDs that'll handle that fairly easily.
"You mean 'effect'?"
Yeah whatever, Mr. Destin-e-y. Always good to hear from an authority on the mispelling of words.
"You are using false logic. Just because some pirated keys are, it does not mean ALL are. It does further not mean that pirtaed games equals blacklisted ones. In addition, non pirtaed games can for example also be pirated."
OOooookay. So even though they're preventing keys that are known to be pirated from being played on battle.net... Yeesh, speaking of false logic. What's really amusing about this is that battle.net made it possible to find pirated keys. "WTF? There have been 1,000 connections using this key from all over the country!" Heh.
" Do you say that since Blizzard offer an online service to match people up for games, no one else should be allowed to?"
Nope. I've already stated what I think.
"No, I am not missing it, they have blacklisted many keys, some "pirated", some not at all. There are many "pirated" keys used, including on battle.net still. So what is your point? "
They very specifically blacklisted pirated keys. Copy.... protection. BNetD did not blacklist keys. Copy... circumvention. Point... clear... as crystal.... Duh.
" what does it have to do with what others offer?"
Copy protection brokie.
"I must assume that you simply is against competition."
Heh. Look man, it's plainly clear that your argument is crumbling, so you're hoping to 'win' by drawing me into an argument about my views or whatever. I don't feel like playing that right now. It's bad enough that you're being willfully ignorant to maintain your view, it's another thing altogether to waste my time with cheap attempts to make me look like a bad person. "Well.. my argument is correct if you really really narrow down the conditions, stretch the truth, close one eye, and interpret things in a surreal way. Besides, you're pro child slavery!!"
"I suspect a fair number of google hating IP goes to MS VARs, partners or Redmond."
I can't speak for the rest of the 'Google Haters', but I think I've probably been labeled as one by now. It is common for people to be characterized/stereotyped/grouped into simple simple names. I don't hate Google, but I have expressed caution at their growth. The bigger they get, the more money they need. The more money they need, the greater the likelihood they'll do something the average Slashdotter will describe as 'evil'.
This sort of cautionary tale does not require hatred of Google or love of Microsoft. Google has services a lot of us rely on. Google makes money from advertising. Google has competition. Google had stockholders who want money. Amazingly, lots of people around here are grabbing their ankles over Google without a care in the world. For all the 'sky is falling!' preminitions around here, that one just simply went through.
In any event, don't assume I hate Google or love Microsoft or pop a woody over karma, I'm just suggesting you cover your ass.
I imagine it won't be much longer before it becomes fashionable to hate Google around here. Judging from your post and the subsequent moderation to it, it's already started to happen.
That's not to say I think your concern is unfounded. Actually I agree with you. I still can't believe how often I hear their corporate tag-line parroted any time somebody criticizes Google's growth. "Google's getting pretty big!" "Yeah but they do no evil!" Heh.
"When hell hounds earth, I bet I won't be invited on the vessel out; why should I as a taxpayer have to fund this ludicrous idea of transplanting 'humanity' to another planet?"
A. Because it would be the sort of forward thinking move that would make it virtually impossible (improbable?) for the human race to go extinct.
B. When any of what I mentioned happens, if it happens, you're shit out of luck. When we can transplant humanity, you'll have at least a chance of going somewhere safe. The more work that's done, the more people that can be sent, etc.
C. They care quite a bit about the planet. But besides the potential tragedies I described, there's also the matter that we'll eventually run out of resources. We'll need to go get more. 'Caring' and recycling will only go so far.
A much better question is: "Why wouldn't we want to plant the seeds to ensure the long term survival of our species?"
"Let's fix the oceans and live in them, that's more feasible than the moon and mars."
Assuming the planet isn't destroyed by asteroids, global warming, or a nuclear war, this would be an awesome idea.
"Because when we blue screen, all of your data goes down into a black hole."
Tee hee giggle snort. That was funny! I'd say more, but Full House is on! Cya!
"Pirated and blacklisted are two completely different things one does not imply the other."
Pirated keys were blacklisted on Battle.net.
"Which is false since you can play pirtaed games online inlcuding on battle.net."
You're missing a very critical bit of info: Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys. It's documented all over the place.
"Do you even remember what your own posts and arguments have been?"
This is the sort of thing that people should say when they know what the fuck they're talking about.
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because a tiny tiny fraction of people use it as a desktop OS?
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
I think it's generally assumed that one says Linux in this context, they're referring to every distro of Linux out there. In this more particular case, they're talking about desktop machines and not servers.
"...and I am personally offended that you post a trite, mocking comment regarding something that I and thousands others have worked hard on the past 10-15 years."
Chill. A 'niche OS' is not an insult.
"Beware, one of the banner advertiser on that page (netshelter.net) is trying to buffer overflow with strangely crafted cookie. Hope you do not run your Firefox on Windows..."
Just another reason to switch to IE!
You could play with a blacklisted key on battle.net?
It didn't start that way. The first movie was not only far from a guaranteed success, but they didn't even have merchandising for the Christmas season.
"Then you should have writte so instead of continously thoughtout every post (including the first one) arguing about circumvention of copy protection when there is no such thing."
I'm not backing down on that. I don't know if they broke the DMCA or not. They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line. Indisputable. Sorry.
"Circumvenmtion adn "copy protection" is dealt by the DMCA. So now you say it did NOT violate the DMCA?"
As I quite clearly stated, I was talking about not feeling sorry for them. Yeesh, man. Lots of bla bla bla over such a simple point.
" The protection you talk about, your CD-keys ONLY controls ACCESS to battle.net, it does NOT conrol COPYING of the game and it does NOT control online play in general."
For all practical purposes, it most certainly does prevent on-line play. Newer releases of Star Craft, for example, rejected black-listed keys during install. Copy protection.
"How is it worthless? It is completely and fully functional and working in all possible ways!!! You could in fact even play with it on battle.net (although not at the same time as anyone else using the same CD-key). But the same can be said with the original in fact. So I fail to see your "worthlessness"."
Blacklist. No battle.net. Worthless. That's why BNetD was created in the first place.
"The improtance of the online is irellevant. The relevant things is what the protection protects, and if it is circumvented when someone uses bnetd."
Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the DMCA here. I don't think it was properly used. I'm not talking about copyrights, I'm talking about whether or not copy protection was circumvented. It was circumvented. Illegally attained games could not connect to battle.net, but they could be connected to BNetD. If you don't like the word 'circumvented' fine, I don't care, you can have that. My point was that BNetD wasn't guily of violating the DMCA. My point was those idiots bypassed a system Blizzard had in place to keep the copies played legit. I don't feel sorry for them for kicking Blizzard in the butt, giving them the raspberry, then suddenly finding themselves in court. It should never have happened in the first place.
"Microsoft gets to eat it's own medicine. Maybe they'll start to realize how bad software patents really are."
Quite the contrary. With that much money at stake, they'll have incentive to patent even more silly stuff. It has two uses: 1.) Sue the crap out of somebody who infringes 2.) Threaten to countersue if they're sued for infringement.
I know quite a few people around here were hoping MS would lose this case, but the reality is that by setting this precedent, it may have done more harm than good.
"That is, what work (that is protected) would you not be able to access or copy and so , in case you had not had bnetd?"
Playing on-line.
"What does that have to do with bnetd?"
The key appeal of their games was playing on-line. That was the reason to play the game. Few people bought that game so they could play the one-player mode. It's like protecting a bicycle from being stolen by removing its seat. Sure, the bike can still be stolen, but who wants a pole up their butt?
"No, it is acces protection of battle.net. You can copy the game just as easy if the cd-key is blacklisted or not."
If you cannot play the copy on-line, then for most people, it's totally worthless. Again, this is a very simple easy-to-understand premise. Yes, the CD key was copy protection. You can spin it any way you want, the end result was that the game was harder to pirate as a result of Battle Net + CD Keys. Then BNetD came along and gave value to those pirated keys. They.... enabled.... piraaaaaaaaaacy.
"If it were copy protection, you would not be able to copy it to start with."
Right. A worthless copy was made. That's successful copy protection.
"Since you both can't connect to battle.net, it is acces protection for BATTLE.NET (nothing else). "
Heh. Nothing else? They blacklisted widely pirated keys. Doh. What's really amusing about this comment is the idea that Blizzard would say "OKay, make sure this system ONLY and I mean ONLY prevents duplicate keys from being accessed at the same time. Do NOT enforce copy protection in any way with it." Oh, by the way, they actually did blacklist a number of pirated keys. Your claim of 'nothing else' is factually false.
"DUH! How many ways does this have to be phrased for you to get this extraordinarily simple concept?"
It'd help if you could make this statement without intentionally ignoring the on-line importance of Blizzard's games.
"Circuvented what and copying of what?"
Oh brother. Is it really so fashionable to hate Blizzard around here that people are willing to throw common sense out the window to try to win on pedantic terms?
It was copy protection. Plain and simple. Inarguable. Online play is the main attraction of their games. They provided the service for playing online. They blacklisted pirated keys. This prevented illegal copies from being played online (before BNetD). This is copy protection. It protected the game from illegal copies being used on-line. Copies that were illegal were not allowed to play. Illegal copies could not be played on Battle Net. Not legal could copies pirated be. How many ways does this have to be phrased for the thicker people to get this extraordinarily simple concept? If I copied the game, gave it to a friend, and he used my code, and we used it at the same time, one of us would get booted. Copy.... protection... D U H.
How much lower are you going to sink in order to paint Blizzard as the bad guy here?
"It doesn't affect the ability to copy any game (or play it) nor does it affect anything that controls the copying or access of the game."
Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys so they couldn't be used on Battle Net. Yes, it was copy protection, and yes BNetD circumvented it, and yes they were irritatingly stupid for getting themselves into that trouble.
"does this result in people being more or less informed? Or are people fooling themselves if they believe that they are well informed by either source?"
That depends... are we talking about Slashdotters here?
"That's it. You can play multiplayer, single player all you want. YOU DON'T NEED BNETD, YOU NEVER DID. It's a lie that bnetd enabled pirating."
Um. Heh. BNetD didn't authorize any keys. Pirated copies could be played on it without any challenges.
"All battle.net did was check to make sure you weren't logged in twice, that doesn't constitute any towards a protection"
Blizzard frequently blacklisted keys.
" Blizzard took these guys to court for reverse engineering and creating a Battle.Net client."
Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme. I'm supposed to boycott Blizzard even though these guys had absolutely no reason to act surprised for both being sued and losing the case.
Welp, im outta questions and interesting things to say. Just wanted to thank ya for the info. :)
G'nite!
"There was one episode of DS9 where two women were pretty forward about being lesbians."
They weren't lesbians. They were two people in love in a previous life.