I wouldn't even go that far. Just assume theres another exploit similar to the WMF picture exploit.
Want to trojan them? Throw something in the data that will buffer overflow something parsing the data and execute code for you. You might not even need them to open it when you consider things like Desktop Search and similar features willingly parsing all the data on your harddrive with potentially vulnerable(or backdoored..) parsers.
I think you got confused because I was trying to make two points at once.
That wasn't my issue with SSL -- My issue is that SSL certs are for domains, not people. AFAIK you don't keep the same domain inside of tor only sites as you do outside of it, so I don't think you could get Verisign to certify that you are the owner of http://eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion/ even if you wanted to.
But thats seperate from the overall problem of keeping a persistent identity. With a persistent identity it doesnt matter that your cert or whatever can't be traced back to your real identity initially. What matters is that once it CAN be tied to you, EVERYTHING you did under it that was logged is now tacked onto you. Maybe down the line you leak more info than you should, have your computer taken over by someone that can find your signing key, whatever. Conceivably at some point in the future one of your posts will be tied to you, do you want them all to come with it or do you want to be able to claim you just posted that one to impersonate the REAL poster?
You're pretty much stuck with self signed certs though, which means that first time you confirm it could be a MITM, and unless you store the cert permanently the next time you hit the site without having it around is another chance to get MITMed.
A better idea would be to just keysign all your posts, but even then, do you want undeniable association to your posts? If its worth using tor for, maybe you're better off letting your messages stand on their own merit instead of needing the trustworthiness of your 'anonymous' name.
Short version: Justin Frankel/Nullsoft creates WASTE, an encrypted IM and p2p file transfer system. Releases it under the GPL. Next day, AOL's lawyers wake up and find out. They say Frankel made it on AOL's time so it is AOL's code, and that he did not have the authority to release it and any distribution is copyright infringement at this point.
Not sure what happened to it then, I think the current version is a clean room implementation. It's kind of a moot point because theres better software out there from a security standpoint, but legality its kind of the exact precident you're looking for.
Now that I think about it, didn't Nullsoft's gnutella have a similar backstory, only without sourcecode release?
cmd.exe has been updated, see www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx ftp has sort of been updated in that they integrated it into explorer.
That is not strictly true. A large amount of WoW players play due to addiction or obligation, not because they have fun. Sure, they occasionally still have fun, but the mindset isn't "I need something fun to do.. I'll launch WoW" but rather "It's raid time and my guild needs me, time to go do what I need to do" or "just 500 more gold for my epic amount.. I need to go farm" or whatever.
I do agree with your point though. Pretty much nothing in this world is worth a shit, and pretending you're better than someone else for any reason just makes you a pretentious self important douche.
Those numbers just tell you how many suckers an ISP has talked into paying for service they don't use. Or at least time warner's does, I know nothing of your pricing. I know if I had to limit my monthly bandwidth use but still pay the large amounts time warner demands, I'd just cancel service (and probably switch to leeching wifi from people that don't know any better but have the same cap..)
If grandma only checks her email once a week, she isnt even using $1 of bandwidth. She's subsidizing the large files I share with my friends, the data I'm tossing around to other blizzard customers every time a WoW patch comes out, the mass downloading that is online streaming from sites like pandora.com, or even netflix, etc.
If you want to start charging me for the so called 'actual' price of bandwidth, why not extend that in the other direction? Why is there a monthly fee when you don't use the service?
Why is this even legal when its directly anticompetitive considering Time Warner charges money for Video On Demand services that will obviously not count against your bandwidth use, yet they can effectively kill Netflix et al's ability to make money offering the same service over the internet?
Really, the only reason you'd have to pirate the game is to take away a sale from a bunch of guys who wanted to make the sort of game they don't really make any more. It's a dick move.
Thats not entirely true. I've never played or heard of your game until now, but to use another example: Radiohead's latest cd. You can download it legally for free, or pay however much you want. Theres no reason to pirate it when you could just 'buy' it for $0 and at least show support for their distribution medium.
Yet I got it off Oink. Why? Not as a fuck you to the artist, but because I had no idea that they had a new cd coming out, or even that it was (potentially) free. I was just browsing torrents and saw it and gave it a try.
I imagine more than a few people have gotten your game off Pirate Bay who otherwise would have never heard of you. While you've almost certainly had some people pirate your game instead of purchase it, I imagine you've also found some new fans.
It's a shame that its done without your consent, but there is a silver lining to your cloud.
Admittedly the HDTV on demand is much better, but my experience with the SD on demands has made me never want to actually pay for on demand service again.
the SD on demands (namely comedy central, mtv, and adult swim) were so highly compressed and garbled that they were mostly unwatchable in many places, with the latency making the fast forward and rewinding horribly slow.
What would be nice is if the On Demand's could detect usage of the official DVRs and send the movies to your harddrive to watch as needed, instead of controlling the remote stream.
Even then I'd still end up using bittorrent more often than not. At least then I can archive it how I want, and have my choice of subs, dubs, and everything else. And I could get stuff that isn't available on demand, like entire seasons of tv shows that aren't being aired anymore.
Yes this is lossy encoding. Yes it is noticable at times, and in some cases I'd rather extend more disk/bandwidth to get rid of it.. but nobody downloading HD movies really has that option, if they're downloading them they're getting them at those sizes.
Even if you're talking legal streaming, I just cant see people putting out 30gig movies yet. Like you said, when we all have 100mbit (and much more storage) maybe, but for now even the purchasable streams/downloads are going to be compressed.
For the record, Time Warner seems to do okay streaming HiDef content with their On Demand service. Admittedly I only used it a few times, but it worked okay. Much better than their SD on demand stuff.
Admittedly to fill up 9GB you're probably talking movies, but it's still not impossible to do it without. Think lengthy complex soundtrack, lots and lots of textures for multiple dissimilar worlds, detailed mapping, redundant sound effects (i.e 5+ different sounds for each 'event' to keep it from getting repetitive, mostly with vocals.)
Then theres also just really huge(as in span) games like the Final Fantasy series. Up the graphics, multiply it by game length..
Ten years, probably not. 40 years, definitely so. The percentage of voters that are part of senior citizen groups that vote as a group and force candidates to either cave to their special interests or risk losing that large chunk of support is certainly enough to influence elections. More young voters would counteract that.
A really good (and free) movie on this subject is The Power of Nightmares. If you haven't seen it and are interested in learning more about the similarities between neocons and muslims, I highly recommend it.
You can only go so far to verify the content you serve is valid XML. The complexity of doing full DOM tree walking on every comment, embeded ad, RSS news feed, etc that will all be served into your page is just not worth it.
Why own the movie, though? Admittedly I'm nowhere near the target market -- I'm not a huge movie fan, and rarely watch a dvd more than once, but as for the winner of the HD wars..
Why not just download rentals, like netflix is offering?
You cite large numbers for the sizes, but you're not considering proper technology use -- X264 and AC3 will bring those movies down to about 4-8gb. Download it, watch it, delete it('return'), get more. Obviously this wouldn't work in all situations, like traveling or in rural areas where an 8gb download isn't something you can do on a whim, but for a lot of use I think thats the future.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Besides that, they've also cut the "armor repairs tax" in half because you now get a 20% discount from vendors where you're exalted. (I like that change a lot more than I like the Azeroth nerfing).
I think that was long overdue, wasn't there an old pvp system discount for the major cities that you no longer can get due to not letting people update their titles?
Also was a pain to only repair in major cities with so many repair guys everywhere, so this will be nice. No more being hit hard for repairing inside BT/Hyjal.
Speaking of raiding.. It's kind of funny that the day you hit 70 you can be dragged through SSC/TK but can't run karazhan until you go through the attunement. I'll never understand why they completely removed t5 attunement but left t6 and t4.
Really overall they made the game easier to get into. Pretty much every raid boss has been nerfed considerably, leveling speed increased, 'welfare epics'(bg, arena, heroic badges, etc), rep grinds lowered, and overall its now easier to get to the top of the game. All changes I like, except that they're made now after I and many others went through all the hard effort that now is not needed. I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, but it's pretty depressing that blizzard's MO is "release really hard content, let people struggle on it, then nerf it so everyone else can play too". Really removes the incentive to want to try in any new content (sunwell, WotLK) because you know you could just wait 5 months and do it when it doesnt take as much work.
As for the person saying I'm comparing desktops to laptops, yes I know that, my point is that its absurdly hard to reasonably spend $5000 on a computer as the OP implied. Getting near top of the line parts like I priced out ended up at $1400, and I was just using the $2000 MBP as a price comparison point as thats what I was originally going to buy. I'd really like to see someone try to put together a $5000 computer without going for obvious extreme overkill (PhysX, SLI top of the line cards, quad cpu server boards, huge raids, etc). The list I put together far surpasses vista's requirements.
$150 ever couple of years for an OS that, even on it's worst day, works better than anything MS has to offer is much better than $500+ to upgrade your machine that will almost definately require another $3000 in hardware to run it at any decent speed.
Ignoring the fact that most people would never pay $500 for an OS(take a look at the OEM vista costs, or the costs for home, or student discount, or any other number of popular ways to get it) or that I don't even know where you'd spend $3000 on hardware -- I tried to price out desktop hardware while debating buying a macbookpro and ended up with https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=522277 , $800 cheaper than the lowend macbook pro but has a quad core 2.4ghz(OCable to 3.6ghz on air), 4gigs of ram, top end video card, etc.
But thats not the point I wanted to make.
The point was that you don't compare paying $150 every couple of years to any outside competition, you look at it and say is this really worth $150 compared to the version I already have? Did they actually add $150 worth of new features?
You aren't renting the OS, you're buying software. You really shouldn't pay $150 for something you already have + a few small features, unless those features are worth $150.
All GPLv3 does is enforce the spirit of GPLv2. Specifically: Everyone has to be able to get the source code, make any change they want, recompile, and run the modified binary.
I disagree that its the spirit so much as an interpretation of the spirit. Sure, it's the interpretation of the original author, but that might not be the spirit developers picked up on when they read the GPL so theres certainly room to complain. Specifically, the code signing/hardware clause I take issue with as I see hardware and software as two separate things, with the software's license having no place mucking with hardware.
Theres legit reasons to not want arbitrary code running on a device. Look at how much crap Rockstar got in over people going out of their way to modify their software(GTA3) to get to a sex scene that is otherwise not at all accessible.
Now imagine what happens when, say, TiVo(let's face it, the reason people care about this clause) has a fork that allows any user to easily share their shows and create private mesh nets of tv shows, including a few PC clients as archive dumps so that people can have access to all tv shows they want.
Yeah, that would be awesome, and the end user would be better off for it, but you can't tell me TiVo wouldn't be in for a world of even more ill will from Big Media(tm), if not outright lawsuits as they're profitting directly from these forks.
If they wern't responsible at all, then they'd just do whatever crazy borderline illegal feature(DeCSS?) they want and release it as anonymous patches that are good for nothing other than making more people buy their device.
I'm not sure how I stand on the service provision. I think it really depends on what the original code was. Yeah, if you fork Movable Type and don't release your spiffy mods to it but instead create SpiffyBlogs.Net I'd agree that's bad, especially so if you use the fact that you're an improved version of movable type to sell your service.
But what about more distant forks? Lets say you had a web based virus scanner where people could upload a file and it would run a bunch of your custom checks and also a GPL virus scanner's scan on it and give you the results. Should all of that code be forced to be released?
What if its not a file upload site but instead web based email? What if say gmail decided to offer virus scanning as a service and used a GPL virus scanner to do so? What if its done in the MTA? It's still part of the service, arguably the linking clause would apply (in addition to bringing their MTA's source out publically as well..)
I like the GPL, but its just too messy and situational. I think Public Domain's best feature is that it has none of this gray area and just is what it is, making things like SQLite so easy to embed.
I'd extend that to say Public Domain is great for small components in a bigger system, as an alternative to lgpl. Look at sqlite for example. Great piece of code that gets used to make lots of software better because anyone can just embed it without running it by a crack legal team to bicker over some linking-vs-external-api-on-binaries or whatever debate.
I'd say the fix is to not allow I'm Feeling Lucky searches with non-google referers. I don't really think its their problem though, so I don't expect them to do anything.
At no point can they be forced to release the sourcecode. The legal system just doesnt work that way.
Assuming it is a GPL(not LGPL) library then yes, to legally distribute the game they have to release the source to all of it. But that doesnt mean that they have to retroactively comply to the license after they broke it, it just means that continuing to distribute it is illegal, and the software authors could sue for financial compensation.
Whether or not its easier to just release the sourcecode (which they may or may not even legally be able to do -- What if it contains restrictively licensed code that conflicts with the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't even go that far. Just assume theres another exploit similar to the WMF picture exploit.
Want to trojan them? Throw something in the data that will buffer overflow something parsing the data and execute code for you. You might not even need them to open it when you consider things like Desktop Search and similar features willingly parsing all the data on your harddrive with potentially vulnerable(or backdoored..) parsers.
I think you got confused because I was trying to make two points at once.
That wasn't my issue with SSL -- My issue is that SSL certs are for domains, not people. AFAIK you don't keep the same domain inside of tor only sites as you do outside of it, so I don't think you could get Verisign to certify that you are the owner of http://eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion/ even if you wanted to.
But thats seperate from the overall problem of keeping a persistent identity. With a persistent identity it doesnt matter that your cert or whatever can't be traced back to your real identity initially. What matters is that once it CAN be tied to you, EVERYTHING you did under it that was logged is now tacked onto you. Maybe down the line you leak more info than you should, have your computer taken over by someone that can find your signing key, whatever. Conceivably at some point in the future one of your posts will be tied to you, do you want them all to come with it or do you want to be able to claim you just posted that one to impersonate the REAL poster?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - MLK, Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963)
You're pretty much stuck with self signed certs though, which means that first time you confirm it could be a MITM, and unless you store the cert permanently the next time you hit the site without having it around is another chance to get MITMed.
A better idea would be to just keysign all your posts, but even then, do you want undeniable association to your posts? If its worth using tor for, maybe you're better off letting your messages stand on their own merit instead of needing the trustworthiness of your 'anonymous' name.
Kind of, Or at least thats what AOL claimed. See: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/31/1259206&mode=thread&tid=120&tid=126&tid=187&tid=95
Short version: Justin Frankel/Nullsoft creates WASTE, an encrypted IM and p2p file transfer system. Releases it under the GPL.
Next day, AOL's lawyers wake up and find out. They say Frankel made it on AOL's time so it is AOL's code, and that he did not have the authority to release it and any distribution is copyright infringement at this point.
Not sure what happened to it then, I think the current version is a clean room implementation. It's kind of a moot point because theres better software out there from a security standpoint, but legality its kind of the exact precident you're looking for.
Now that I think about it, didn't Nullsoft's gnutella have a similar backstory, only without sourcecode release?
cmd.exe has been updated, see www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx
ftp has sort of been updated in that they integrated it into explorer.
Those numbers just tell you how many suckers an ISP has talked into paying for service they don't use. Or at least time warner's does, I know nothing of your pricing. I know if I had to limit my monthly bandwidth use but still pay the large amounts time warner demands, I'd just cancel service (and probably switch to leeching wifi from people that don't know any better but have the same cap..)
If grandma only checks her email once a week, she isnt even using $1 of bandwidth. She's subsidizing the large files I share with my friends, the data I'm tossing around to other blizzard customers every time a WoW patch comes out, the mass downloading that is online streaming from sites like pandora.com, or even netflix, etc.
If you want to start charging me for the so called 'actual' price of bandwidth, why not extend that in the other direction? Why is there a monthly fee when you don't use the service?
Why is this even legal when its directly anticompetitive considering Time Warner charges money for Video On Demand services that will obviously not count against your bandwidth use, yet they can effectively kill Netflix et al's ability to make money offering the same service over the internet?
Thats not entirely true. I've never played or heard of your game until now, but to use another example: Radiohead's latest cd.
You can download it legally for free, or pay however much you want. Theres no reason to pirate it when you could just 'buy' it for $0 and at least show support for their distribution medium.
Yet I got it off Oink. Why? Not as a fuck you to the artist, but because I had no idea that they had a new cd coming out, or even that it was (potentially) free. I was just browsing torrents and saw it and gave it a try.
I imagine more than a few people have gotten your game off Pirate Bay who otherwise would have never heard of you. While you've almost certainly had some people pirate your game instead of purchase it, I imagine you've also found some new fans.
It's a shame that its done without your consent, but there is a silver lining to your cloud.
Admittedly the HDTV on demand is much better, but my experience with the SD on demands has made me never want to actually pay for on demand service again.
the SD on demands (namely comedy central, mtv, and adult swim) were so highly compressed and garbled that they were mostly unwatchable in many places, with the latency making the fast forward and rewinding horribly slow.
What would be nice is if the On Demand's could detect usage of the official DVRs and send the movies to your harddrive to watch as needed, instead of controlling the remote stream.
Even then I'd still end up using bittorrent more often than not. At least then I can archive it how I want, and have my choice of subs, dubs, and everything else. And I could get stuff that isn't available on demand, like entire seasons of tv shows that aren't being aired anymore.
Your idea of a hidef filesize seems off. You must be using the maximum disk capacity of one of these formats.
After encoding, you'll find even 1080p content is rarely larger than 10gigs. The entire Heroes Season2 in 1080p is 22gigs.
Source: http://thepiratebay.org/search/1080p/0/3/0
Yes this is lossy encoding. Yes it is noticable at times, and in some cases I'd rather extend more disk/bandwidth to get rid of it.. but nobody downloading HD movies really has that option, if they're downloading them they're getting them at those sizes.
Even if you're talking legal streaming, I just cant see people putting out 30gig movies yet. Like you said, when we all have 100mbit (and much more storage) maybe, but for now even the purchasable streams/downloads are going to be compressed.
For the record, Time Warner seems to do okay streaming HiDef content with their On Demand service. Admittedly I only used it a few times, but it worked okay. Much better than their SD on demand stuff.
Admittedly to fill up 9GB you're probably talking movies, but it's still not impossible to do it without. Think lengthy complex soundtrack, lots and lots of textures for multiple dissimilar worlds, detailed mapping, redundant sound effects (i.e 5+ different sounds for each 'event' to keep it from getting repetitive, mostly with vocals.)
Then theres also just really huge(as in span) games like the Final Fantasy series. Up the graphics, multiply it by game length..
Ten years, probably not. 40 years, definitely so. The percentage of voters that are part of senior citizen groups that vote as a group and force candidates to either cave to their special interests or risk losing that large chunk of support is certainly enough to influence elections. More young voters would counteract that.
It's what they did with the xbox, and it worked.
A really good (and free) movie on this subject is The Power of Nightmares. If you haven't seen it and are interested in learning more about the similarities between neocons and muslims, I highly recommend it.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Sort by date. HTH
You can only go so far to verify the content you serve is valid XML. The complexity of doing full DOM tree walking on every comment, embeded ad, RSS news feed, etc that will all be served into your page is just not worth it.
Why own the movie, though? Admittedly I'm nowhere near the target market -- I'm not a huge movie fan, and rarely watch a dvd more than once, but as for the winner of the HD wars..
Why not just download rentals, like netflix is offering?
You cite large numbers for the sizes, but you're not considering proper technology use -- X264 and AC3 will bring those movies down to about 4-8gb.
Download it, watch it, delete it('return'), get more. Obviously this wouldn't work in all situations, like traveling or in rural areas where an 8gb download isn't something you can do on a whim, but for a lot of use I think thats the future.
I think that was long overdue, wasn't there an old pvp system discount for the major cities that you no longer can get due to not letting people update their titles?
Also was a pain to only repair in major cities with so many repair guys everywhere, so this will be nice. No more being hit hard for repairing inside BT/Hyjal.
Speaking of raiding.. It's kind of funny that the day you hit 70 you can be dragged through SSC/TK but can't run karazhan until you go through the attunement. I'll never understand why they completely removed t5 attunement but left t6 and t4.
Really overall they made the game easier to get into. Pretty much every raid boss has been nerfed considerably, leveling speed increased, 'welfare epics'(bg, arena, heroic badges, etc), rep grinds lowered, and overall its now easier to get to the top of the game. All changes I like, except that they're made now after I and many others went through all the hard effort that now is not needed. I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, but it's pretty depressing that blizzard's MO is "release really hard content, let people struggle on it, then nerf it so everyone else can play too". Really removes the incentive to want to try in any new content (sunwell, WotLK) because you know you could just wait 5 months and do it when it doesnt take as much work.
Whoops, copied the internal link, no idea why newegg seperates them..
https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=5222774
should work.
As for the person saying I'm comparing desktops to laptops, yes I know that, my point is that its absurdly hard to reasonably spend $5000 on a computer as the OP implied. Getting near top of the line parts like I priced out ended up at $1400, and I was just using the $2000 MBP as a price comparison point as thats what I was originally going to buy. I'd really like to see someone try to put together a $5000 computer without going for obvious extreme overkill (PhysX, SLI top of the line cards, quad cpu server boards, huge raids, etc). The list I put together far surpasses vista's requirements.
Ignoring the fact that most people would never pay $500 for an OS(take a look at the OEM vista costs, or the costs for home, or student discount, or any other number of popular ways to get it) or that I don't even know where you'd spend $3000 on hardware -- I tried to price out desktop hardware while debating buying a macbookpro and ended up with https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=522277 , $800 cheaper than the lowend macbook pro but has a quad core 2.4ghz(OCable to 3.6ghz on air), 4gigs of ram, top end video card, etc.
But thats not the point I wanted to make.
The point was that you don't compare paying $150 every couple of years to any outside competition, you look at it and say is this really worth $150 compared to the version I already have? Did they actually add $150 worth of new features?
You aren't renting the OS, you're buying software. You really shouldn't pay $150 for something you already have + a few small features, unless those features are worth $150.
I disagree that its the spirit so much as an interpretation of the spirit. Sure, it's the interpretation of the original author, but that might not be the spirit developers picked up on when they read the GPL so theres certainly room to complain. Specifically, the code signing/hardware clause I take issue with as I see hardware and software as two separate things, with the software's license having no place mucking with hardware.
Theres legit reasons to not want arbitrary code running on a device. Look at how much crap Rockstar got in over people going out of their way to modify their software(GTA3) to get to a sex scene that is otherwise not at all accessible.
Now imagine what happens when, say, TiVo(let's face it, the reason people care about this clause) has a fork that allows any user to easily share their shows and create private mesh nets of tv shows, including a few PC clients as archive dumps so that people can have access to all tv shows they want.
Yeah, that would be awesome, and the end user would be better off for it, but you can't tell me TiVo wouldn't be in for a world of even more ill will from Big Media(tm), if not outright lawsuits as they're profitting directly from these forks.
If they wern't responsible at all, then they'd just do whatever crazy borderline illegal feature(DeCSS?) they want and release it as anonymous patches that are good for nothing other than making more people buy their device.
I'm not sure how I stand on the service provision. I think it really depends on what the original code was. Yeah, if you fork Movable Type and don't release your spiffy mods to it but instead create SpiffyBlogs.Net I'd agree that's bad, especially so if you use the fact that you're an improved version of movable type to sell your service.
But what about more distant forks? Lets say you had a web based virus scanner where people could upload a file and it would run a bunch of your custom checks and also a GPL virus scanner's scan on it and give you the results. Should all of that code be forced to be released?
What if its not a file upload site but instead web based email? What if say gmail decided to offer virus scanning as a service and used a GPL virus scanner to do so? What if its done in the MTA? It's still part of the service, arguably the linking clause would apply (in addition to bringing their MTA's source out publically as well..)
I like the GPL, but its just too messy and situational. I think Public Domain's best feature is that it has none of this gray area and just is what it is, making things like SQLite so easy to embed.
I'd extend that to say Public Domain is great for small components in a bigger system, as an alternative to lgpl. Look at sqlite for example. Great piece of code that gets used to make lots of software better because anyone can just embed it without running it by a crack legal team to bicker over some linking-vs-external-api-on-binaries or whatever debate.
I'd say the fix is to not allow I'm Feeling Lucky searches with non-google referers. I don't really think its their problem though, so I don't expect them to do anything.
At no point can they be forced to release the sourcecode. The legal system just doesnt work that way.
Assuming it is a GPL(not LGPL) library then yes, to legally distribute the game they have to release the source to all of it. But that doesnt mean that they have to retroactively comply to the license after they broke it, it just means that continuing to distribute it is illegal, and the software authors could sue for financial compensation.
Whether or not its easier to just release the sourcecode (which they may or may not even legally be able to do -- What if it contains restrictively licensed code that conflicts with the GPL?