This is the first time I heard the suggestion that Microsoft wants to abandon MMOLRPGs. Can you find and point to a reference to support this.
I would be very surprised if it were true, because Sony is investing in it heavily, and bringing their games to the Sony PS2 as well as PC. FF XI, for instance, permits both PC and PS2 players to play in the same world.
No game provides customer loyalty (ie, addiction... continuous revenue) more than MMOLRPGs. If Sony continues to foster their growth on the PS2, and Microsoft abandons it in the XBox, then I suspect this could spell the end of XBox. The number of people adopting MMOLRPGs each year is growing in leaps and bounds, kind of like the Internet explosion of the late 90s.
Off topic: If anyone finds one that allows user created content, is RPG, is centrally hosted (monthly fee), and has an anti-nerfing policy, please post on slashdot!
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMOLRPG) demand hard drive space, so the HD will stay. Sony PS/2 tried it without the hard drive for EverQuest Online (Frontiers), and realized it was a problem because they couldn't significantly upgrade the clients with the self imposed 3M limit. Thus, FXII requires a USB hard drive in order to play.
Those that play the games on PCs know that patches can include a lot of changes, which can require a significant download to upgrade the clients. Plus, the clients effectively cache maps and other things, creating large files to permit efficient game play.
The hard drive will stay.
I have suspicions that those of us that have been boycotting RIAA labels have put a dent in their sales and they know it. Remember boycott-riaa.com? The problem is they obfuscate it by lumping all their annual sales declines, which includes decreases caused by boycotting and the economy, and use it to cry "piracy!".
Boycotting MPAA companies does not have the momentum that RIAA boycotting has, yet. One thing is clear though. As we come up wth "voting with dollars" solutions, we need to make this clear to those who the MPAA, like the RIAA, will try to lie to. Congress, the media and the public at large need to be aware that a boycott is in effect to the point where "cries over piracy" cannot be heard wtihout invoking thoughts of boycott.
I personally can't remember how long it's been since I bought an RIAA sanctioned CD. And, unlike the RIAA's accusations, I did it without downloading music that the artists didn't post! Between the countless musicians I found that provide incredible music freely on the internet, the radio and CD's I already own from before the boycott, or the occassional gift, I'm content.
As for DVDs, I don't buy them, but I do rent. I know that they are whining about how rentals is making it hard for them to pay for all those $100+ million dollar blockbusters, so it appears for the time being that it is at least a compromise solution to a "voting with dollars" boycott; at least until a full-fledged organized and focussed boycott points the way.
What concerns me though is they indicated plans to do something about what rentals has done to their poor blockbuster profits. Unlike the RIAA, the MPAA's concern today is the impact of rentals.
Be very alert on decisions they make that could impact the rental industry, perhaps through DRM control that permits them to at least increase rental margins and wrest control from independents that could choose to not support their new regime.
I know that I've read before that IBM is being sued for giving away "derivative works", but I never realized how relavent the derivative part of the issue was until I read this. SCO blatantly admits it in its response, although most of their repsonse salts it continuously with insinuations that IBM gave away code that belongs to SCO. Here's where SCO practically admits they don't have a case YET:
INTERROGATORY NO. 6 (IBM to SCO):
For each line of source or object code and each method identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, please identify: (a) the origin of the code or method, including when, where and by whom the code or method was created; and (b) all products in which, in whole or in part, the code or method is included or on which, in whole or in part, the code or method is based.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 (SCO's response):
At the original level, the origin of the code or method, or that on which it is based, is UNIX System V code licensed by IBM and Sequent, i.e., System V Release 3.2 and System V Release 4.0, as AIX and Dynix/ptx are modifications or derivatives of UNIX System V. At the modification or derivative level, the origin of this code is from AIX or Dynix/ptx as set forth in the Tables and tabbed exhibits in response to Interrogatory No. 1. Because that work was done by IBM and Sequent and because SCO has not received complete discovery from IBM on the creation of this code, SCO cannot provide any further detail as to who at IBM or Sequent created the code or method or precisely when they did so. To the extent the contributions by IBM identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 publicly identify who at IBM made the contribution to Linux, it appears in the tabbed exhibits in response to Interrogatory No. 1. [blah blah blah...]
SCO clearly admits that the code that IBM allegedly agreed not to share was created by IBM! I understand that they are claiming copyright protection to derivative works, but doesn't this greatly weeken their claim that IBM gave away trade secrets since this is code that IBM clearly wrote?
Until SCO can get a detailed response from IBM, it's difficult for SCO to prove that IBM gave code they wrote for AIX and Dynix/ptx to Linux, since they can't prove that IBM didn't write the code for Linux and then put it into AIX and Dynix/ptx. Without knowing who wrote each line and when and for what purpose, you can't say for sure whether or not code portions SCO highlighed are not a derivative of Linux.
Then, if any code was written with for both IBM's Unix and Linux, then which is it a derivative of? Clearly, IBM was writing code for both platforms, and some of it was bound to overlap. If a developer who wrote the code at IBM was trying to ensure it worked in both platforms, then isn't it, by SCO's definition of derivation, both a derivative of Linux and Unix?
Is there a legal precedent in copyright court cases for when product A (code in question) is a derivative of BOTH product B (AIX) and C (Linux), product B is a derivative of product D (SCO Unix), and owner of product D claims that product A cannot be a derivative of anything other than product B, and this should not have been part of product C, which it was also a derivative of?
SCO's whole ability to sue Linux users is based on copyright of the code in question. Yet both copyright and trade secrecy allegations seem to pinge on this concept of just how far derivative works can be defined.
This case seems to be defining them in contractual terms. Yet even the contractual claims cannot avoid addressing who owns the copyright of "derivative" works. To what extent does copyright law support it in complicated scenarios like this?
Add to that that user of product C (Linux binaries) has no knowledge of product B (Unix source).
When SCO and Novell copyrighted Unix source code, did either of them actually include the lines of code that IBM wrote? Was this all backported into Unix System V? If so, should we be suing SCO for infringement of the GNU since this code is clearly a derivative of Linux?
For those not already boycotting all RIAA labels, or at least the top 5, it looks like a good list of artists to boycott. No CDs, no shirts, no concerts, etc....
I'd be unhappy if I were an artist, and my sales went down because the RIAA used me to persecute citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be very surprised if it were true, because Sony is investing in it heavily, and bringing their games to the Sony PS2 as well as PC. FF XI, for instance, permits both PC and PS2 players to play in the same world.
No game provides customer loyalty (ie, addiction... continuous revenue) more than MMOLRPGs. If Sony continues to foster their growth on the PS2, and Microsoft abandons it in the XBox, then I suspect this could spell the end of XBox. The number of people adopting MMOLRPGs each year is growing in leaps and bounds, kind of like the Internet explosion of the late 90s.
Off topic: If anyone finds one that allows user created content, is RPG, is centrally hosted (monthly fee), and has an anti-nerfing policy, please post on slashdot!
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMOLRPG) demand hard drive space, so the HD will stay. Sony PS/2 tried it without the hard drive for EverQuest Online (Frontiers), and realized it was a problem because they couldn't significantly upgrade the clients with the self imposed 3M limit. Thus, FXII requires a USB hard drive in order to play. Those that play the games on PCs know that patches can include a lot of changes, which can require a significant download to upgrade the clients. Plus, the clients effectively cache maps and other things, creating large files to permit efficient game play. The hard drive will stay.
Boycotting MPAA companies does not have the momentum that RIAA boycotting has, yet. One thing is clear though. As we come up wth "voting with dollars" solutions, we need to make this clear to those who the MPAA, like the RIAA, will try to lie to. Congress, the media and the public at large need to be aware that a boycott is in effect to the point where "cries over piracy" cannot be heard wtihout invoking thoughts of boycott.
I personally can't remember how long it's been since I bought an RIAA sanctioned CD. And, unlike the RIAA's accusations, I did it without downloading music that the artists didn't post! Between the countless musicians I found that provide incredible music freely on the internet, the radio and CD's I already own from before the boycott, or the occassional gift, I'm content.
As for DVDs, I don't buy them, but I do rent. I know that they are whining about how rentals is making it hard for them to pay for all those $100+ million dollar blockbusters, so it appears for the time being that it is at least a compromise solution to a "voting with dollars" boycott; at least until a full-fledged organized and focussed boycott points the way.
What concerns me though is they indicated plans to do something about what rentals has done to their poor blockbuster profits. Unlike the RIAA, the MPAA's concern today is the impact of rentals.
Be very alert on decisions they make that could impact the rental industry, perhaps through DRM control that permits them to at least increase rental margins and wrest control from independents that could choose to not support their new regime.
Erik
OpenStandards.net
SCO clearly admits that the code that IBM allegedly agreed not to share was created by IBM! I understand that they are claiming copyright protection to derivative works, but doesn't this greatly weeken their claim that IBM gave away trade secrets since this is code that IBM clearly wrote?
Until SCO can get a detailed response from IBM, it's difficult for SCO to prove that IBM gave code they wrote for AIX and Dynix/ptx to Linux, since they can't prove that IBM didn't write the code for Linux and then put it into AIX and Dynix/ptx. Without knowing who wrote each line and when and for what purpose, you can't say for sure whether or not code portions SCO highlighed are not a derivative of Linux.
Then, if any code was written with for both IBM's Unix and Linux, then which is it a derivative of? Clearly, IBM was writing code for both platforms, and some of it was bound to overlap. If a developer who wrote the code at IBM was trying to ensure it worked in both platforms, then isn't it, by SCO's definition of derivation, both a derivative of Linux and Unix?
Is there a legal precedent in copyright court cases for when product A (code in question) is a derivative of BOTH product B (AIX) and C (Linux), product B is a derivative of product D (SCO Unix), and owner of product D claims that product A cannot be a derivative of anything other than product B, and this should not have been part of product C, which it was also a derivative of?
SCO's whole ability to sue Linux users is based on copyright of the code in question. Yet both copyright and trade secrecy allegations seem to pinge on this concept of just how far derivative works can be defined.
This case seems to be defining them in contractual terms. Yet even the contractual claims cannot avoid addressing who owns the copyright of "derivative" works. To what extent does copyright law support it in complicated scenarios like this?
Add to that that user of product C (Linux binaries) has no knowledge of product B (Unix source).
When SCO and Novell copyrighted Unix source code, did either of them actually include the lines of code that IBM wrote? Was this all backported into Unix System V? If so, should we be suing SCO for infringement of the GNU since this code is clearly a derivative of Linux?
For those not already boycotting all RIAA labels, or at least the top 5, it looks like a good list of artists to boycott. No CDs, no shirts, no concerts, etc....
I'd be unhappy if I were an artist, and my sales went down because the RIAA used me to persecute citizens.