Carmack already said if they do a port to a console it will be the xbox. PS2 won't run it without significant "sacrifices". And I don't think it was ever console manufacturers intention to create hardware that will blow PC's out of the water. Thats not the idea at all.
Sure it's free speech, and sure its ok, if it's true.. But what if the guy put say, HP's ip address on his blacklist and claimed they were a spammer. That's libel and HP would be completely justified in suing the pants off him for damages to their business. And what if a company only sends say 10% spam and the rest is legitimate e-mail. Is it fair for them to get blacklisted, and their legitimate business damaged for the small amount of spam they send? I realize this company sounds like it's pretty much 100% spam and I think they should rot in hell, I just disagree with the people jumping up shouting "it's free speech!!!! you can't touch it he can put whoever he wants on his list!!!" without any thought to the potential consequences if that were actually how things worked.
Sony may or may not have been aware their copy-protection could be broken this way. However I'm sure they knew that eventually it WOULD be cracked somehow, there's no disputing that. My question is will they use this as evidence to support DRM claims. I can just see it now: "But we tried to protect our cd's judge, it just won't work!! the only solution is hardware level copy protection in everything with a cd-rom drive in it...."
I know this is offtopic but why was Microsoft's OEM licensing controls regarding the bootloader never brought up in any of this antitrust business. Microsofts OEM licensing agreements are considered "trade secrets" and thus we can never know the exact wording of them but the basic gist of it is that any computer with windows installed on it cannot have any other os installed and be set to dual boot from the factory. If it weren't for this any computer manufacturer could add a linux partition to their windows machines for basically nothing, it would add value and give linux a foot in the door of the consumer market. I would love to hear Microsoft explain why they do this. To me it is akin to old navy selling me a shirt but saying I cant have clothes from any other manufacturer in my closet. Any other company would be laughed out of business, but if your a monopoly people don't have much choice but to comply now do they?
Slashdot Mirror
Carmack already said if they do a port to a console it will be the xbox. PS2 won't run it without significant "sacrifices". And I don't think it was ever console manufacturers intention to create hardware that will blow PC's out of the water. Thats not the idea at all.
Sure it's free speech, and sure its ok, if it's true.. But what if the guy put say, HP's ip address on his blacklist and claimed they were a spammer. That's libel and HP would be completely justified in suing the pants off him for damages to their business. And what if a company only sends say 10% spam and the rest is legitimate e-mail. Is it fair for them to get blacklisted, and their legitimate business damaged for the small amount of spam they send? I realize this company sounds like it's pretty much 100% spam and I think they should rot in hell, I just disagree with the people jumping up shouting "it's free speech!!!! you can't touch it he can put whoever he wants on his list!!!" without any thought to the potential consequences if that were actually how things worked.
Sony may or may not have been aware their copy-protection could be broken this way. However I'm sure they knew that eventually it WOULD be cracked somehow, there's no disputing that. My question is will they use this as evidence to support DRM claims. I can just see it now: "But we tried to protect our cd's judge, it just won't work!! the only solution is hardware level copy protection in everything with a cd-rom drive in it...."
I know this is offtopic but why was Microsoft's OEM licensing controls regarding the bootloader never brought up in any of this antitrust business. Microsofts OEM licensing agreements are considered "trade secrets" and thus we can never know the exact wording of them but the basic gist of it is that any computer with windows installed on it cannot have any other os installed and be set to dual boot from the factory. If it weren't for this any computer manufacturer could add a linux partition to their windows machines for basically nothing, it would add value and give linux a foot in the door of the consumer market. I would love to hear Microsoft explain why they do this. To me it is akin to old navy selling me a shirt but saying I cant have clothes from any other manufacturer in my closet. Any other company would be laughed out of business, but if your a monopoly people don't have much choice but to comply now do they?