Ok, i use Galeon, so i will just comment my personal view...
Since Mozilla 0.9.8 seems to keep crashing
It's not crashing here (not once), i am using 0.9.7 though (0.9.6 had a bug with javascript and couldn't play yahoo chess:))
I've also run into a number of pages that Konqueror does not handle all that well...
That's the single most important problem with Konqueror imho. If i develop with Konqueror i will not know if it looks fine under Windows, so they wouldn't let me use Linux...(at work at least)
...but I'm not sure if its due to standards violations in those pages or in Konqueror.
If things show well on IE, they will not fix the problem. That's a problem. The broser should try it's best to display non conforming HTML as other browers do (not Konquerors fault, but...).
It does make me miss good Mozilla things, like tabbed browsing.
Galeon has tabbed browsing before Mozilla (and i find it better than Mozillas built-in). Opera first implemented t.b. though.
I might be missing it, but I also can't find a way to do a text zoom in Konqueror!
Galeon has it...
Konqueror, for the paranoid, it handles cookie requests as well as... Lynx!
Cookies management in Galeon is the best i've seen so far. It really has and advanced and flexible cookies database.
"we will all one day be choosing our browser based on what" the W3C like, not what users like.
Imho it's best to have choice and shades. The "one and only" web broswer you want is ok, but what if the W3C screws?
Also, the problem is not the W3C more than the rendering engines themselves: do Explorer and Mozilla and "[insert favorite]" look the same? That the W3C can't enfoce, and that's what we want. And that's what Bill (or whoever has the most browser market at any point) doesn't want...
It has some, though not in the code. I think the developer worked at Netscape and when they started Mozilla from scratch he disagreed, quit, and made Lynx for fun:p
(or, it doesn't have soft dependecies, but though was interesting)
Since you can access mostly all your account throught the net, i don't know how true is your solution to just unplug from the net.
More over, if Microsoft reaches a more monopolistic position (note i am not saying that is bad or good), then everything will be propietary and banks will need to use microsoft (are his allies) tools.
What happens if a huge security flaw is found under windows and the banks are robbed massively?
It would completely suboptimal to have only ONE (real) choice targeted at medium security and no means to sue them.
It's just funny and sad...
OF COURSE, it's my opinion (and i'm just another guy)
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform," said Microsoft.
Isn't this like saying they want to keep the illegal practices like bundling stuff to destroy competition or forcing OEM to take the all-and-alone-or-nothing Windows license?
* five years later somebody discovers a single bug and writes an exploit
Software will always have bugs. But no producer is punished for making insecure programs. Only bad PR. I think it's suboptimal that bad PR is the ONLY incentive to write secure apps.
Company A wants to sell products for e-tailers? Then they better issue some kind of warranty (not that it's 100% bug free, but at least a level indicating how hard it is to break it, or how much time will it pass before they issue a patch).
Some harm is irreparable, meaning punishment IS NOT ENOUGH. Also, the weaker the security, the more the incentives to breach it. If you put all the banks reserves into transparent glass structures that anyone can see, you are not helping to "discourage people from vandalism". Would YOU put your money in such a bank?
Of course, a bank is RESPOSIBLE for your money so they CARE about SECURITY. But software vendors don't care much unless it gives them bad PR. After all, they are NOT RESPONSIBLE.
Make them liable, like bank, and also punish intruders.
Well, if you are selling stuff to a bank or online retailer you "should be willing to invest a lot more money into testing which in turn ends up costing the users lot more money". In fact, the law should FORCE you to do so.
The problem is that there's no regulation at all. When something wrong happens we all blame it to "sCriPt KiDz or CiberTerrorists".
Like you'd open a bank in the a bazar...or like you'd open a ice-cream shop in a highly secured building. Software is the same, there should be different warranties regarding security so that each kind of company could pick the one.
If they run a Monopoly, then the thing changes, as people have no other alternative. If they run a monopoly of course they can sell "as-is". What would you do? Stop using Word and risk your clients cancelling your account because they can't read the reports?
It's the only market stuff is sold "as is" with NO WARRANTY AT ALL. Of course, open source is not in trouble as long as they don't achieve a monopoly position.
If they ever do, then some company will have to grab GPLd stuff and audit it so it can be used in Banks and Finacial institutions or even in the goverment (unless it's 100% secure, which products never are).
We NEED some kind of warranty. At least a best effort one, where companies agree to issue a patch in at most 2 days.
I think it's a demand side problem, not a supply side on. When you hire a constructor to rise a building, you sure woudln't accept "the building is provided as is". The problem is that if you a SINGLE constructor that could make a compatible building (say roof, walls and Windows are patented stuff) and he only would construct "as is", what would you do?
And this is where the law is failling. There should be laws to protect the consumer of security vulnerabilities. But what incentive has Microsoft to issue a "Limited Warranty" if he can get away with a "No Warranty At All" eula?
And here comes my suggestions.
* Regulate EULA. Make it so that if you don't offer ANY WARRANTY AT ALL, you are not liable BUT you can't sell the product to banks, companies using it for transactions recordings, etc.
* Maybe different kind of "Limited Warranties" could be adopted for different uses, the more Warranties you offer the more you'll be liable (meaning only REALLY SECURE products can be sold as such...else you risk going bankrupt).
* Maybe require to publish source-code to any "registered auditor" that wants to review it, in the high security markets.
* Maybe make it so that if important vulnerabilities are found, you MUST give the customers the money back, just like you can return any flawed product.
This can only come true if the goverment of the DoJ wants it to. Because the consumers (people+companies) are too unorganiced to enforce this.
I think the link should be http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name= News&file=article&sid=149
Here's the important stuff...
Does BNETD Violate Blizzard Copyrights?
Unlikely, although it must be stated that Vivendi/Blizzard has yet to claim which exclusive rights are infringed by which programs hosted by bnetd, so this analysis is based on speculation as to likely complaints.
In general, copyright infringement consists in copying or distributing another's work without authorization. In this case, the bnetd server is the original work of its various developers (BNETD Project Credits ). The developers have never had access to Battle.net software, so it would be impossible for them to have copied it. As there is no copying there is no infringement. Indeed, Blizzard's FAQ on the case admits as much since it is called the Emulation FAQ . In computer science, emulators are software designed to imitate the same function as another piece of software. They are not copies. If it was a copy, it would not be "imitating" the function of another piece of software, it would be the same software.
In order to create a Battle.net emulator, the bnetd developers engaged in a combination of reverse and value engineering. Their method of reverse engineering did not require any decompiling or disassembly of the code of the client (again, they could not have deassembled or decompiled the Battle.net code since they did not have access to it). It is decompiling of code that frequently gets reverse engineers in copyright trouble -- that is not a problem for bnetd since it was not required. Bnetd was able to reverse engineer by simply looking at the traffic between server (Battle.net) and client (game player). For example, a player would start a game as one type of character on Battle.net in Diablo II (e.g., a Necromancer) capture the packets, then start a game as a different character (e.g., a Barbarian) and capture the packets. By comparing the two packet dumps, one of the bnetd developers would be able to determine which packets identified specific elements of the game. The developer would then make changes to the bnetd server and check his work by performing the same test with client on the bnetd server. Through trial and error, the bnetd server improved.
To my knowledge there is no law that holds that reverse engineering a protocol through packet dumping implicates copyright in any way.
Vivendi might claim that special programs to assist users of bnetd to edit their Windows registry violated copyright. As mentioned above, the Windows registry consists of configuration files that can be modified by the user using regedit.exe which is part of every version of Windows. It is not at all clear how provision of a program to make editing certain portions of the registry easier would violate an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Moreover, it is not clear whether a user who alters the registry is violating copyright. They may be violating the EULA (more below), but that is not a violation of copyright.
Does BNETD Violate Section 1201 of the DMCA?
Unlikely, but the statute in question is quite complicated and the law has not yet been clarified by the courts. It must also be made clear that simply because something may facilitate piracy does not mean it violates section 1201 of the DMCA.
The first issue is whether or not the CD-Key authorization mechanism is an access control device under section 1201(a). Section 1201(a) states that a device controls access to a work, "if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." One significant question is access to what work? Bnetd does not facilitate unauthorized access to Battle.net, it is a substitute. Bnetd does not facilitate access to the single player version of the game. Bnetd does not faciliate access to the LAN multiplayer aspects of the game. Bnetd does not facilitate access to Internet multiplayer, since that is accomplished through LAN emulators such as Kali. At worst, bnetd facilitates access to Internet multiplayer using the client's Battle.net interface. It is questionable whether access to a particular interface counts as "access to the work." It is questionable whether enabling certain functionality is "access to the work." Even granting that the interface or functionality is a work that can be improperly accessed, does accessing it require tha application of information, or a process or a treatment to gain such access? For every Blizzard game prior to the Warcraft III beta, clearly not. Bnetd servers don't send any "access" information to a client, they simply do not bar a client from accessing them.
This is made clear by the definition of circumvention in 1201(a)(3)(B), which "means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Bnetd does not descramble, decrypt, remove or deactivate anything. It does not avoid, bypass or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing. Indeed, section 1201(c)(3) states that, "nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure." The reason for this is to prevent copyright holders from forcing copy protection measures onto computer and consumer electronics manufacturers. An example would be a music publisher who releases a CD that has watermarking in the music. The watermark states, "do not rip into MP3 format." There is no obligation for CD manufacturers to build in a system that can detect and obey that watermark.
Moreover, even bnetd did circumvent an access anti-circumvention measure, it would still be legal to distribute it so long as:
* It was not primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention. A very good case can be made that the primary purpose of producing bnetd was to provide an alternative to the drawbacks and limitations of Battle.net (About the BNETD Project). One quote from a Review of Diablo II on MacGamer.com will provide some idea of the frustrations many feel with regard to Battle.net: "Provided that Battlenet doesn't make you want to pry your eyes out with a grapefruit spoon, you will find that you can go online and play your character in the Diablo Battlenet Realms." Even Blizzard's Senior Director, Bill Roper, admits that Battle.net's stability left something to be desired in an interview with Eurogamer , "There was certainly a period of time in the history of Battle.net where the team was constantly playing catch-up. They work on stability, they work on how many people could be online, they work on access and bandwidth issues, they get all those things fixed, and then we get another 25,000 people online concurrently and all [the] new stuff will break."
* It has more than limited commercially significant purpose. Again, a very good case can be made that bnetd does have significant commercial purposes. Bnetd currently supports a number of features that Battle.net does not, such as the ability to connect with IRC, create custom ladder games and tournaments, and send broadcast messages.
* Is not marketed for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Although, as an open source project, bnetd has little control over how some individuals may promote it -- the bnetd and Warforge developers have never promoted piracy of Blizzard's games. Indeed, the developers of bnetd are some of Blizzard's biggest supporters and fans.
The next issue is whether bnetd violates section 1201(b) which prohibits distribution of devices which "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" the Copyright Act. To qualify as technological protection measure under section 1201(b), a device must in the ordinary course of its operation, prevent, restrict, or otherwise limit the exercise of a right of a copyright owner." The only right at issue would seem to be the right to copy. But it is difficult to claim that bnetd undermines this as one must already have a copy of a Blizzard game (legitimate or illegitimate) in order to use bnetd. In other words, any copying occurs prior to use of bnetd. It may be that the availability of bnetd encourages some to make illicit copies who wouldn't have without bnetd, but that is not a violation of the DMCA.
It is also strange to claim that the CD-Key system prevents copying since a valid CD-Key is not necessary to connect to Battle.net and download the latest patches for a warez copy of the game. Using a warez copy one logs into Battle.net. Prior to CD-Key validation, Blizzard conveniently provides the latest patches for the warez copy. Patches are also available via public ftp (http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/war3/patches/beta/ ). It is hard to claim that the CD-Key system effectively prevents copying when Blizzard itself updates warez copies of its games to the latest version. Most bnetd servers are set up by owners of legitimate copies and the server ensures that those joining have the same version of the game. If Blizzard were truly concerned about piracy they would at least try to make it more difficult to get the latest patches.
Furthermore, under section 1201(f)(2): Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
It seems pretty clear that even if bnetd is a circumvention device, then it clearly falls under the exemption of 1201(f)(2), since any circumvention is only for the purpose of achieving interoperability between bnetd and the Blizzard game. Such interoperability does not constitute infringement, since it does not violate sections 106-118 or 602.
- Path to progress - make it so that the site can be used right away easily, but has advanced feature fans will like.
- Contextuality (the right stuff presented where usefull, and interconnected)
- Nameability - sometimes, the names you pick for menus and what you put in them is the single most important thing to keep in mind (ie: what do i put, a "download section" or area links like "muscle cars", etc and from in there a "download screenshots" link?
- Don't let the nice into it unless it helps layout the content ("niceness" alone is not enough)
I don't think you need to make a Lynx-style site for it to become usefull...
My Windows friend is always asking me "Hey Fede could you try and see if this.avi works? It has no sound on WMP although it downloaded some codec!".
...I mount the SMB...
Fede: $ mplayer file.avi ...
"Fede: Yep, the file's fine, works great"
"Pato: damn...i tought so. I'll switch to Linux some day!"
He also askes me to check partially downloaded files (ie: couldn't download 100% of it). I think mplayer rebuilds the indexes while some WMP codecs do not, so i can play them and WMP cannot.
What you mean is that Microsoft has the right to enforce their Monopoly into the musiv and video markets?
I mean, why not force Microsoft to use an open standard? Why everyone, always have to comply with stuff that will lock everyone's future?
You are talking about a consecuence, not a cause. The problem is the cause. WHY DO WE ALLOW MS TO ENFORCE MONOPOLIES OVER THEIR USERS?
Haven't got a clue as why, expect that people ruling markets are ineed getting a lot of money. Easier to collect from 1 single company!
'Free' software only really appeals to those people that refuse to pay for software outright... and would end up pirating pay software anyway.
How about:
'Free' software only really appeals to those people that refuse to pirate...
I've "discovered" the fact that i can't switch many people to Linux because they better like pirating Windows stuff. The very second things become unpirateable, they'll start bitching like babies and will run to Linux OR pay for cheap alternatives to the defacto standards of today.
What makes you think paid sites will not offer better and greater stuff that you value, so that the price is ok?
I think people will pay what they value, if it sells for a pair price AND (BIG AND) you can't pirate it.
People like pirating, they don't give a damn about company A or B (in general). They know they aren't the ones making the world so unfair so "fix the world first, then judge me".
It's my impression, i in no way would endorse piracy. In fact, i think piracy does not always harm company A but in fact may help it kill company B (ex: if MS Office couldn't be pirated, it would have been used less, and some other companies would have had an income).
Oh. Well, depends on the app. Big photo retouching needs a fast CPU and a lot of RAM. Optionally (if you don't have huge ram), a fast SCSI.
But i think with the price gap i just preffer a 2 GB RAM with slow IDE than 512 MB with fastest SCSI.
I'd tend to agree, but it easy to say "accept everything" good disregarding who and how it will be maintained.
I think that bug fixes beign dropped are a problem, patches not beign included DEPENDS. If they can't maintain it, Linux stalls and we all lose.
So the problem is, as Linux said (and i didn't see it inmediately) sending the patch to the people that actually maintain the stuff beign patched.
Just my 0 cents (i am broke)
I managed my father's IT for a while, as a hobby. I have always believed in irrestricted access to the net.
What did i found out? That while some used it very wiselly, other just surfed for pr0n, news, chat, ICQ, etc. whenever they where alone or unwatched.
Of course, some guys had a balance between pr0n and work and some others did not.
I tried everything and reached the conclusion not everyone is resposible and depending on the case, i could just talk to them, or ban them from www and/or email.
Some people are addicts, they can't restrict themselves a bit and they KNOW they are wasting time. They just can't help it, and i find it better to ban them from certain things than to have their boss fire them.
Another solution would have been to let thing escalate (not because i'd tell anyone), but because it becomes evident.
I better like the monitor and punish strategy than the to limit EVERYONE because of a few.
Maybe i missed something, but they are paying taxes...so they better let them read their Swank and Shagadellic Today...(if there is concessus they want that).
I mean, the point is not so much if it's free or not, but whether the society believes it's a Good Thing(R) or not...
I can imagine an inmoral future where Penthouse has to Bribe the goverment NOT to put Shagadelly Today in the libraries:)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, i use Galeon, so i will just comment my personal view...
:))
...but I'm not sure if its due to standards violations in those pages or in Konqueror.
:)
Since Mozilla 0.9.8 seems to keep crashing
It's not crashing here (not once), i am using 0.9.7 though (0.9.6 had a bug with javascript and couldn't play yahoo chess
I've also run into a number of pages that Konqueror does not handle all that well...
That's the single most important problem with Konqueror imho. If i develop with Konqueror i will not know if it looks fine under Windows, so they wouldn't let me use Linux...(at work at least)
If things show well on IE, they will not fix the problem. That's a problem. The broser should try it's best to display non conforming HTML as other browers do (not Konquerors fault, but...).
It does make me miss good Mozilla things, like tabbed browsing.
Galeon has tabbed browsing before Mozilla (and i find it better than Mozillas built-in). Opera first implemented t.b. though.
I might be missing it, but I also can't find a way to do a text zoom in Konqueror! Galeon has it...
Konqueror, for the paranoid, it handles cookie requests as well as... Lynx!
Cookies management in Galeon is the best i've seen so far. It really has and advanced and flexible cookies database.
Best of all, Konqueror is *just* a web browser
Same here
How about:
"we will all one day be choosing our browser based on what" the W3C like, not what users like.
Imho it's best to have choice and shades. The "one and only" web broswer you want is ok, but what if the W3C screws?
Also, the problem is not the W3C more than the rendering engines themselves: do Explorer and Mozilla and "[insert favorite]" look the same? That the W3C can't enfoce, and that's what we want. And that's what Bill (or whoever has the most browser market at any point) doesn't want...
It has some, though not in the code. I think the developer worked at Netscape and when they started Mozilla from scratch he disagreed, quit, and made Lynx for fun :p
(or, it doesn't have soft dependecies, but though was interesting)
Negligence anyone?
Since you can access mostly all your account throught the net, i don't know how true is your solution to just unplug from the net.
More over, if Microsoft reaches a more monopolistic position (note i am not saying that is bad or good), then everything will be propietary and banks will need to use microsoft (are his allies) tools.
What happens if a huge security flaw is found under windows and the banks are robbed massively?
It would completely suboptimal to have only ONE (real) choice targeted at medium security and no means to sue them.
It's just funny and sad...
OF COURSE, it's my opinion (and i'm just another guy)
Mozilla can't dasplay better than Galeon though, a it uses the mozilla rendering engine (geckos).
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform," said Microsoft.
Isn't this like saying they want to keep the illegal practices like bundling stuff to destroy competition or forcing OEM to take the all-and-alone-or-nothing Windows license?
I mean, this comes to me as shocking...
* five years later somebody discovers a single bug and writes an exploit
Software will always have bugs. But no producer is punished for making insecure programs. Only bad PR. I think it's suboptimal that bad PR is the ONLY incentive to write secure apps.
Company A wants to sell products for e-tailers? Then they better issue some kind of warranty (not that it's 100% bug free, but at least a level indicating how hard it is to break it, or how much time will it pass before they issue a patch).
Some harm is irreparable, meaning punishment IS NOT ENOUGH. Also, the weaker the security, the more the incentives to breach it. If you put all the banks reserves into transparent glass structures that anyone can see, you are not helping to "discourage people from vandalism". Would YOU put your money in such a bank? Of course, a bank is RESPOSIBLE for your money so they CARE about SECURITY. But software vendors don't care much unless it gives them bad PR. After all, they are NOT RESPONSIBLE. Make them liable, like bank, and also punish intruders.
Forgot the question marks...
"Would you like to open a bank in the a bazar?...or like you'd open a ice-cream shop in a highly secured building?"
Well, if you are selling stuff to a bank or online retailer you "should be willing to invest a lot more money into testing which in turn ends up costing the users lot more money". In fact, the law should FORCE you to do so.
The problem is that there's no regulation at all. When something wrong happens we all blame it to "sCriPt KiDz or CiberTerrorists".
Like you'd open a bank in the a bazar...or like you'd open a ice-cream shop in a highly secured building. Software is the same, there should be different warranties regarding security so that each kind of company could pick the one.
If they run a Monopoly, then the thing changes, as people have no other alternative. If they run a monopoly of course they can sell "as-is". What would you do? Stop using Word and risk your clients cancelling your account because they can't read the reports?
It's the only market stuff is sold "as is" with NO WARRANTY AT ALL. Of course, open source is not in trouble as long as they don't achieve a monopoly position.
If they ever do, then some company will have to grab GPLd stuff and audit it so it can be used in Banks and Finacial institutions or even in the goverment (unless it's 100% secure, which products never are).
We NEED some kind of warranty. At least a best effort one, where companies agree to issue a patch in at most 2 days.
I think it's a demand side problem, not a supply side on. When you hire a constructor to rise a building, you sure woudln't accept "the building is provided as is". The problem is that if you a SINGLE constructor that could make a compatible building (say roof, walls and Windows are patented stuff) and he only would construct "as is", what would you do?
And this is where the law is failling. There should be laws to protect the consumer of security vulnerabilities. But what incentive has Microsoft to issue a "Limited Warranty" if he can get away with a "No Warranty At All" eula?
And here comes my suggestions.
* Regulate EULA. Make it so that if you don't offer ANY WARRANTY AT ALL, you are not liable BUT you can't sell the product to banks, companies using it for transactions recordings, etc.
* Maybe different kind of "Limited Warranties" could be adopted for different uses, the more Warranties you offer the more you'll be liable (meaning only REALLY SECURE products can be sold as such...else you risk going bankrupt).
* Maybe require to publish source-code to any "registered auditor" that wants to review it, in the high security markets.
* Maybe make it so that if important vulnerabilities are found, you MUST give the customers the money back, just like you can return any flawed product.
This can only come true if the goverment of the DoJ wants it to. Because the consumers (people+companies) are too unorganiced to enforce this.
I think the link should be http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name= News&file=article&sid=149
... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
Here's the important stuff...
Does BNETD Violate Blizzard Copyrights?
Unlikely, although it must be stated that Vivendi/Blizzard has yet to claim which exclusive rights are infringed by which programs hosted by bnetd, so this analysis is based on speculation as to likely complaints.
In general, copyright infringement consists in copying or distributing another's work without authorization. In this case, the bnetd server is the original work of its various developers (BNETD Project Credits ). The developers have never had access to Battle.net software, so it would be impossible for them to have copied it. As there is no copying there is no infringement. Indeed, Blizzard's FAQ on the case admits as much since it is called the Emulation FAQ . In computer science, emulators are software designed to imitate the same function as another piece of software. They are not copies. If it was a copy, it would not be "imitating" the function of another piece of software, it would be the same software.
In order to create a Battle.net emulator, the bnetd developers engaged in a combination of reverse and value engineering. Their method of reverse engineering did not require any decompiling or disassembly of the code of the client (again, they could not have deassembled or decompiled the Battle.net code since they did not have access to it). It is decompiling of code that frequently gets reverse engineers in copyright trouble -- that is not a problem for bnetd since it was not required. Bnetd was able to reverse engineer by simply looking at the traffic between server (Battle.net) and client (game player). For example, a player would start a game as one type of character on Battle.net in Diablo II (e.g., a Necromancer) capture the packets, then start a game as a different character (e.g., a Barbarian) and capture the packets. By comparing the two packet dumps, one of the bnetd developers would be able to determine which packets identified specific elements of the game. The developer would then make changes to the bnetd server and check his work by performing the same test with client on the bnetd server. Through trial and error, the bnetd server improved.
To my knowledge there is no law that holds that reverse engineering a protocol through packet dumping implicates copyright in any way.
Vivendi might claim that special programs to assist users of bnetd to edit their Windows registry violated copyright. As mentioned above, the Windows registry consists of configuration files that can be modified by the user using regedit.exe which is part of every version of Windows. It is not at all clear how provision of a program to make editing certain portions of the registry easier would violate an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Moreover, it is not clear whether a user who alters the registry is violating copyright. They may be violating the EULA (more below), but that is not a violation of copyright.
Does BNETD Violate Section 1201 of the DMCA?
Unlikely, but the statute in question is quite complicated and the law has not yet been clarified by the courts. It must also be made clear that simply because something may facilitate piracy does not mean it violates section 1201 of the DMCA.
The first issue is whether or not the CD-Key authorization mechanism is an access control device under section 1201(a). Section 1201(a) states that a device controls access to a work, "if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." One significant question is access to what work? Bnetd does not facilitate unauthorized access to Battle.net, it is a substitute. Bnetd does not facilitate access to the single player version of the game. Bnetd does not faciliate access to the LAN multiplayer aspects of the game. Bnetd does not facilitate access to Internet multiplayer, since that is accomplished through LAN emulators such as Kali. At worst, bnetd facilitates access to Internet multiplayer using the client's Battle.net interface. It is questionable whether access to a particular interface counts as "access to the work." It is questionable whether enabling certain functionality is "access to the work." Even granting that the interface or functionality is a work that can be improperly accessed, does accessing it require tha application of information, or a process or a treatment to gain such access? For every Blizzard game prior to the Warcraft III beta, clearly not. Bnetd servers don't send any "access" information to a client, they simply do not bar a client from accessing them.
This is made clear by the definition of circumvention in 1201(a)(3)(B), which "means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Bnetd does not descramble, decrypt, remove or deactivate anything. It does not avoid, bypass or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing. Indeed, section 1201(c)(3) states that, "nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure." The reason for this is to prevent copyright holders from forcing copy protection measures onto computer and consumer electronics manufacturers. An example would be a music publisher who releases a CD that has watermarking in the music. The watermark states, "do not rip into MP3 format." There is no obligation for CD manufacturers to build in a system that can detect and obey that watermark.
Moreover, even bnetd did circumvent an access anti-circumvention measure, it would still be legal to distribute it so long as:
* It was not primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention. A very good case can be made that the primary purpose of producing bnetd was to provide an alternative to the drawbacks and limitations of Battle.net (About the BNETD Project). One quote from a Review of Diablo II on MacGamer.com will provide some idea of the frustrations many feel with regard to Battle.net: "Provided that Battlenet doesn't make you want to pry your eyes out with a grapefruit spoon, you will find that you can go online and play your character in the Diablo Battlenet Realms." Even Blizzard's Senior Director, Bill Roper, admits that Battle.net's stability left something to be desired in an interview with Eurogamer , "There was certainly a period of time in the history of Battle.net where the team was constantly playing catch-up. They work on stability, they work on how many people could be online, they work on access and bandwidth issues, they get all those things fixed, and then we get another 25,000 people online concurrently and all [the] new stuff will break."
* It has more than limited commercially significant purpose. Again, a very good case can be made that bnetd does have significant commercial purposes. Bnetd currently supports a number of features that Battle.net does not, such as the ability to connect with IRC, create custom ladder games and tournaments, and send broadcast messages.
* Is not marketed for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Although, as an open source project, bnetd has little control over how some individuals may promote it -- the bnetd and Warforge developers have never promoted piracy of Blizzard's games. Indeed, the developers of bnetd are some of Blizzard's biggest supporters and fans.
The next issue is whether bnetd violates section 1201(b) which prohibits distribution of devices which "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" the Copyright Act. To qualify as technological protection measure under section 1201(b), a device must in the ordinary course of its operation, prevent, restrict, or otherwise limit the exercise of a right of a copyright owner." The only right at issue would seem to be the right to copy. But it is difficult to claim that bnetd undermines this as one must already have a copy of a Blizzard game (legitimate or illegitimate) in order to use bnetd. In other words, any copying occurs prior to use of bnetd. It may be that the availability of bnetd encourages some to make illicit copies who wouldn't have without bnetd, but that is not a violation of the DMCA.
It is also strange to claim that the CD-Key system prevents copying since a valid CD-Key is not necessary to connect to Battle.net and download the latest patches for a warez copy of the game. Using a warez copy one logs into Battle.net. Prior to CD-Key validation, Blizzard conveniently provides the latest patches for the warez copy. Patches are also available via public ftp (http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/war3/patches/beta/ ). It is hard to claim that the CD-Key system effectively prevents copying when Blizzard itself updates warez copies of its games to the latest version. Most bnetd servers are set up by owners of legitimate copies and the server ensures that those joining have the same version of the game. If Blizzard were truly concerned about piracy they would at least try to make it more difficult to get the latest patches.
Furthermore, under section 1201(f)(2):
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure
It seems pretty clear that even if bnetd is a circumvention device, then it clearly falls under the exemption of 1201(f)(2), since any circumvention is only for the purpose of achieving interoperability between bnetd and the Blizzard game. Such interoperability does not constitute infringement, since it does not violate sections 106-118 or 602.
Thanks (the site's full of SQL connect errors now)
IMHO, a simple site is pointless.
Here are my suggestions:
- Path to progress - make it so that the site can be used right away easily, but has advanced feature fans will like. - Contextuality (the right stuff presented where usefull, and interconnected) - Nameability - sometimes, the names you pick for menus and what you put in them is the single most important thing to keep in mind (ie: what do i put, a "download section" or area links like "muscle cars", etc and from in there a "download screenshots" link? - Don't let the nice into it unless it helps layout the content ("niceness" alone is not enough)
I don't think you need to make a Lynx-style site for it to become usefull...
My Windows friend is always asking me "Hey Fede could you try and see if this .avi works? It has no sound on WMP although it downloaded some codec!".
...I mount the SMB...
...
Fede: $ mplayer file.avi
"Fede: Yep, the file's fine, works great"
"Pato: damn...i tought so. I'll switch to Linux some day!"
He also askes me to check partially downloaded files (ie: couldn't download 100% of it). I think mplayer rebuilds the indexes while some WMP codecs do not, so i can play them and WMP cannot.
What you mean is that Microsoft has the right to enforce their Monopoly into the musiv and video markets? I mean, why not force Microsoft to use an open standard? Why everyone, always have to comply with stuff that will lock everyone's future?
You are talking about a consecuence, not a cause. The problem is the cause. WHY DO WE ALLOW MS TO ENFORCE MONOPOLIES OVER THEIR USERS?
Haven't got a clue as why, expect that people ruling markets are ineed getting a lot of money. Easier to collect from 1 single company!
It's just my opinion though...
'Free' software only really appeals to those people that refuse to pay for software outright... and would end up pirating pay software anyway.
How about:
'Free' software only really appeals to those people that refuse to pirate...
I've "discovered" the fact that i can't switch many people to Linux because they better like pirating Windows stuff. The very second things become unpirateable, they'll start bitching like babies and will run to Linux OR pay for cheap alternatives to the defacto standards of today.
MOVs are not playing in my mplayer (it'scompiled in and everything else works fine). I get a black background and no sound...
Don't you have premium channels there?
What makes you think paid sites will not offer better and greater stuff that you value, so that the price is ok? I think people will pay what they value, if it sells for a pair price AND (BIG AND) you can't pirate it. People like pirating, they don't give a damn about company A or B (in general). They know they aren't the ones making the world so unfair so "fix the world first, then judge me". It's my impression, i in no way would endorse piracy. In fact, i think piracy does not always harm company A but in fact may help it kill company B (ex: if MS Office couldn't be pirated, it would have been used less, and some other companies would have had an income).
Oh. Well, depends on the app. Big photo retouching needs a fast CPU and a lot of RAM. Optionally (if you don't have huge ram), a fast SCSI. But i think with the price gap i just preffer a 2 GB RAM with slow IDE than 512 MB with fastest SCSI.
I'd tend to agree, but it easy to say "accept everything" good disregarding who and how it will be maintained. I think that bug fixes beign dropped are a problem, patches not beign included DEPENDS. If they can't maintain it, Linux stalls and we all lose. So the problem is, as Linux said (and i didn't see it inmediately) sending the patch to the people that actually maintain the stuff beign patched. Just my 0 cents (i am broke)
I managed my father's IT for a while, as a hobby. I have always believed in irrestricted access to the net.
What did i found out? That while some used it very wiselly, other just surfed for pr0n, news, chat, ICQ, etc. whenever they where alone or unwatched.
Of course, some guys had a balance between pr0n and work and some others did not.
I tried everything and reached the conclusion not everyone is resposible and depending on the case, i could just talk to them, or ban them from www and/or email.
Some people are addicts, they can't restrict themselves a bit and they KNOW they are wasting time. They just can't help it, and i find it better to ban them from certain things than to have their boss fire them.
Another solution would have been to let thing escalate (not because i'd tell anyone), but because it becomes evident.
I better like the monitor and punish strategy than the to limit EVERYONE because of a few.
Hard experience...what would you do?
Maybe i missed something, but they are paying taxes...so they better let them read their Swank and Shagadellic Today...(if there is concessus they want that).
:)
I mean, the point is not so much if it's free or not, but whether the society believes it's a Good Thing(R) or not...
I can imagine an inmoral future where Penthouse has to Bribe the goverment NOT to put Shagadelly Today in the libraries