I'm glad the emu crowd has fun with EQEmu, since it doesn't affect the paying EQ player in the slightest (unlike ShowEQ and the macro programs).
It does bear mentioning that a person (or a small group of people) would be hard-pressed to arrive at the staggering amount of content which Verant/SOE has designed for EQ in the past several years.
You might try contacting the people at http://www.youmaybenext.com/ since they're dealing with the same issue, just a different patent.
Slashdot articles on that topic are at http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/0 5/21 21249&tid=155 and http://yro.slashdot.org/articl e.pl?sid=02/10/22/01 5241&tid=155
The fact that none of their patents actually contain the word "Internet" is rather telling, though.
In other news, Microsoft reports that it has purchased the rights to the next edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Among the changes expected to appear in this edition, the word "choice" will henceforth be defined as "the act of giving Microsoft more money, esp. against one's better judgment."
Agreed - the Internet has shown us that poorly managed technology can be exploited, whether by spammers, advertisers, or uber corporations. I don't even want to be able to receive text messages on my cell phone, because most cell phone companies think it's a good thing to *charge people for using almost no bandwidth*; but also because I don't want to read about how to enlarge my unit when I'm trying to talk on the phone.
All my stuff now works fine. I don't have a Palm Pilot - I use good old pen and paper when I need to write something down. These new technologies aren't being driven by people's real need to have the technology available to them; they're instead driven by the desire of large corporations to make money off of people.
Just think, if HR 5211 hadn't temporarily flopped in House Judiciary this year, the RIAA could have gone in and personally dealt with those midshipmen themselves. And there's not a damn thing that the feds could have done to stop them, what with giving them the ability to do that in the first place.
The only thing that makes posting to slashdot any different than writing in a weblog is that weblog entries are longer and have a lower density of profanity. They both are used to shore up the insecurities of imperfect people by giving them somewhere to make themselves feel important.
So before you rip on blogs anymore, just remember that ur teh sux0r t00 n00b!!!!!111``` hahahaha
"Of course the 4th amendment protects you from the state, not from private interests."
Which is, of course, the whole problem with Berman's legislation. The FBI has pretty much zero interest (and far insufficient resources) in arresting the zillions of individual p2p'ers in the nation, and has no access to zillions more around the world. So, the RIAA/MPAA want the ability to do what the government cannot.
One of the many problems with this? Where is the oversight? If a cop peeks through your window to see a drug deal going down, it's an invasion of your privacy, and the evidence generally gets thrown out in court. But where is the court to judge whether the RIAA/MPAA/other copyright holders have overstepped their bounds? In fact, Berman's legislation removes virtually all capability for public oversight through the courts, by restricting available information on RIAA/MPAA methods (an anti-FOIA clause), and by requiring that complainants go through DoJ in order to enter their case into court.
There's also that part where the legislation would allow a thug from the RIAA/MPAA to enter your house (as long as he doesn't break the lock/doorjamb) and cut the power cord to your computer, as well as other miscellaneous reparable damage that doesn't exceed $50. Goodbye network card, power cord, patch cable, and keyboard, any of which could be construed to be instrumental in the sharing of files on your machine.
One might also examine the possibility that since the Federal government has declared any exchange of marijuana for money to be patently illegal, then such exchange cannot fall under the auspices of intrastate trade protection, since the very concept of marijuana trade is not possible to do legally.
Besides, allowing sick people access to a federally banned/controlled substance is analogous to allowing poor people to counterfeit money, or at the least, be given counterfeit money by third-party printers, to alleviate their poorness. There are other alternatives for pain relief that are more rigorously controlled for better prevention of leakage into the community at large.
The 5% rule states that the only income to be counted toward the retroactive payments is that derived from webcasting or running an ISP (which there may be a good reason for, like preventing a sort of shelter for webcasting revenue under your ISP revenue that can't be easily separated), so your concerns can be allayed.
As far as Dems opposing the bill, they didn't oppose it enough to come down to the floor and demand a recorded vote. The bill passed under a suspension of the rules by voice vote only, which generally means either everyone likes it, or it passed under the radar of pretty much everyone who wouldn't like it.
Besides, issues regarding IP, piracy, and the RIAA/MPAA have been relatively non-partisan. Berman (D-CA) is happily trying to make it legal for the RIAA(/MPAA) to bend (admittedly law-breaking) citizens over a barrel to have its way with them.
It's just as well that Hollywood should fold up. Everything coming out of there in the last several years has been formulaic and unoriginal, for the most part; look what The Matrix did to promote unnecessary use of Bullet-Time and cheesy near-future sci-fi plots of people using martial arts to defeat numerous nameless stereotypical villains. The most interesting films seem generally to be the ones without insane production costs.
The solution for the major movie houses, if they don't want to collapse under the weight of their production costs, is to reduce those costs by finding fresh, new talent who is willing to work for reasonable sums of money. I mean, what qualities truly relevant to acting does Jennifer Aniston have that dozens or hundreds of paycheck-to-paycheck stage actors don't?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad the emu crowd has fun with EQEmu, since it doesn't affect the paying EQ player in the slightest (unlike ShowEQ and the macro programs).
It does bear mentioning that a person (or a small group of people) would be hard-pressed to arrive at the staggering amount of content which Verant/SOE has designed for EQ in the past several years.
You might try contacting the people at http://www.youmaybenext.com/ since they're dealing with the same issue, just a different patent.
0 5/21 21249&tid=155l e.pl?sid=02/10/22/01 5241&tid=155
Slashdot articles on that topic are at
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/artic
The fact that none of their patents actually contain the word "Internet" is rather telling, though.
In other news, Microsoft reports that it has purchased the rights to the next edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Among the changes expected to appear in this edition, the word "choice" will henceforth be defined as "the act of giving Microsoft more money, esp. against one's better judgment."
Do we really need this stuff?...
Necessity may have been the mother of Invention in the past... but Necessity reached menopause years ago.
Corporate Greed is the new mother of Invention. And she'll sleep with anybody for a quick buck.
Agreed - the Internet has shown us that poorly managed technology can be exploited, whether by spammers, advertisers, or uber corporations. I don't even want to be able to receive text messages on my cell phone, because most cell phone companies think it's a good thing to *charge people for using almost no bandwidth*; but also because I don't want to read about how to enlarge my unit when I'm trying to talk on the phone.
All my stuff now works fine. I don't have a Palm Pilot - I use good old pen and paper when I need to write something down. These new technologies aren't being driven by people's real need to have the technology available to them; they're instead driven by the desire of large corporations to make money off of people.
Just think, if HR 5211 hadn't temporarily flopped in House Judiciary this year, the RIAA could have gone in and personally dealt with those midshipmen themselves. And there's not a damn thing that the feds could have done to stop them, what with giving them the ability to do that in the first place.
In other words, you pay with your sanity....
The only thing that makes posting to slashdot any different than writing in a weblog is that weblog entries are longer and have a lower density of profanity. They both are used to shore up the insecurities of imperfect people by giving them somewhere to make themselves feel important.
So before you rip on blogs anymore, just remember that ur teh sux0r t00 n00b!!!!!111``` hahahaha
"Of course the 4th amendment protects you from the state, not from private interests."
Which is, of course, the whole problem with Berman's legislation. The FBI has pretty much zero interest (and far insufficient resources) in arresting the zillions of individual p2p'ers in the nation, and has no access to zillions more around the world. So, the RIAA/MPAA want the ability to do what the government cannot.
One of the many problems with this? Where is the oversight? If a cop peeks through your window to see a drug deal going down, it's an invasion of your privacy, and the evidence generally gets thrown out in court. But where is the court to judge whether the RIAA/MPAA/other copyright holders have overstepped their bounds? In fact, Berman's legislation removes virtually all capability for public oversight through the courts, by restricting available information on RIAA/MPAA methods (an anti-FOIA clause), and by requiring that complainants go through DoJ in order to enter their case into court.
There's also that part where the legislation would allow a thug from the RIAA/MPAA to enter your house (as long as he doesn't break the lock/doorjamb) and cut the power cord to your computer, as well as other miscellaneous reparable damage that doesn't exceed $50. Goodbye network card, power cord, patch cable, and keyboard, any of which could be construed to be instrumental in the sharing of files on your machine.
One might also examine the possibility that since the Federal government has declared any exchange of marijuana for money to be patently illegal, then such exchange cannot fall under the auspices of intrastate trade protection, since the very concept of marijuana trade is not possible to do legally.
Besides, allowing sick people access to a federally banned/controlled substance is analogous to allowing poor people to counterfeit money, or at the least, be given counterfeit money by third-party printers, to alleviate their poorness. There are other alternatives for pain relief that are more rigorously controlled for better prevention of leakage into the community at large.
Link to legislation/status info
The 5% rule states that the only income to be counted toward the retroactive payments is that derived from webcasting or running an ISP (which there may be a good reason for, like preventing a sort of shelter for webcasting revenue under your ISP revenue that can't be easily separated), so your concerns can be allayed.
As far as Dems opposing the bill, they didn't oppose it enough to come down to the floor and demand a recorded vote. The bill passed under a suspension of the rules by voice vote only, which generally means either everyone likes it, or it passed under the radar of pretty much everyone who wouldn't like it.
Besides, issues regarding IP, piracy, and the RIAA/MPAA have been relatively non-partisan. Berman (D-CA) is happily trying to make it legal for the RIAA(/MPAA) to bend (admittedly law-breaking) citizens over a barrel to have its way with them.
It's just as well that Hollywood should fold up. Everything coming out of there in the last several years has been formulaic and unoriginal, for the most part; look what The Matrix did to promote unnecessary use of Bullet-Time and cheesy near-future sci-fi plots of people using martial arts to defeat numerous nameless stereotypical villains. The most interesting films seem generally to be the ones without insane production costs.
The solution for the major movie houses, if they don't want to collapse under the weight of their production costs, is to reduce those costs by finding fresh, new talent who is willing to work for reasonable sums of money. I mean, what qualities truly relevant to acting does Jennifer Aniston have that dozens or hundreds of paycheck-to-paycheck stage actors don't?