Don't forget that the DMCA allows you to circumvent the copy protection of software and hardware in order to develop an inter-operable device or program. Also the DMCA specifically says that leaving out the copy protection of a device for inter-operability is *NOT* a violation of the DMCA. Nor is defeating/removing the copy protection in order to figure out how to make something inter-operable. Please note the 2 quotes below or read the entire law yourself at:
DMCA Section 1201-bc3 "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, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)."
DMCA Section 1201-f " Reverse Engineering.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
You said that "Blizzard enjoys a relatively low amount of piracy of it's games that are played online." If this is true this would seem to indicate that bnetd is not a factor at all in online piracy since the project has existed for the past 3-4 years and at least the past 2 years in a very playable form.
So you have refuted your own arguement with your own words.
How is it that your able to on battle.net behind a firewall? What's that you can't? Hmm guess you shouldn't have blow off bnetd so quickly. Oh you hate the dupers and the number of people who ruin playing games online and you can't do anything about it? Hmm bnetd would have fixed that. Oh your in a foreign country and your latency is so bad no one will play with you? Hmm guess you shouldn't have kissed off bnetd so fast.
See a pattern here? If not, well I am suprised you play online at all then.
Actually a lot of people use it to play from behind a firewall, since you can't do it any other way. Also how about the nasty server splits or when the servers are to too full or when they simply keep dumping you in the middle of games? Or what about dealing with some of the dupers or jerks who just ruin the whole game?
These are all legit uses for bnetd. Guess there are legitimate uses. I guess I just went to greath lengths to justify uses, NOT!
Being the web site ISP in question. I specifically ask the Blizzard lawyers this question and was told "absolutely not would they provide that, or give it to us" and "its beside the point of the issue at hand"
Packet dumps of what is going on between the client and the server were exactly how the protocols for connecting to the servers were done I believe. I have several of the packet dump files here that people sent in to various of the developers to help fix bugs and figure out how things were suppose to be done.
Well I talked with Blizzards lawyers about this. They claim the problem is that bnetd doesn't have the CD-KEY anti-piracy that their servers have. Thus anyone with pirated copy can play online with bnetd but not on battle.net, thus we are encouraging piracy by providing a place for people with pirate copies to play online.
I suspect the real reason is the Warcraft 3 BETA mess. Combine this with the issue of other groups (http://www.madgrfx.com/warforge.html, http://www.clan519.com/, and a group on DALnet #bnetd) trying to say that they were the bnetd group and began working to support the Warcraft 3 BETA being pirated everywhere. Well I am sure that didn't help things at all.
Given the large number of lawsuites by employees against employers for hostile work environments due to sexual material and other inapporpriate material available over the internet and on computer screens in the work place. How do you see reconsiling the legal issues with the freedom everyone wants to see on the internet and some of the anti-censor mentality that some groups hold up? Also what do you see about the liability of schools who allow kids access to material that in other formats would be illegal or questionable at best? How should schools respond to these issues in light of their legal duties as well as in light of not being a censor?
It is easy to say don't censor anything but the reality and legality of it is different. I don't think the issues are quite as clear cut as some people would like to think.
Anyone notice that you can't just buy a server certificate anymore from Verisign. They want to sell you a whole package deal of services and other things for 128 bit certificates.
http://www.verisign.com/server/prd/g/index.html
I also don't like the fact there is now no competition to Verisign and that they have huge requirements and slow to respond to problems and can't track documents within their own company that you send them. If you can't do everything the Verisign way then God help you since they will drag everything out forever and loose documentation you send them. I also see they are buying Signio E-Commerce payment service for busines to business e-commerce transactions. Where will they stop, they are starting to sound like they want to be like Microsoft only they want to control all secure and E-Commerce stuff on the internet. Verisign also charges more or at least use to charge more for basic secure certificates. Looks like the days og just buying a certificate for your server are over. Now you have to buy a whole package of services and you probably won't be able to get wildcat certificates any more either. Which is a real problem since I shouldn't have to pay $950*x just for a few servers in my own domain for easier adminstration purposes to do internal stuff via a secure web page.
I don't see any major news magazines reporting this. I don't see even any thing to back this up like a comment from WebTV or Microsoft or the people involved. How do we know that this web site didn't just post something they heard with no factual double checking as reporters are suppose to do. This is one of my main complaints about the internet is that anyone can make a web page and post any information they want, but it doesn't make it true. Any confirmation to this story at all???
Being an ISP I can tell you the simplest way to do this is to give me a reason or something service-wise that I don't already have. Say a way to instantly message all my customers or a way to push information out to them automaticly when they come online. The ability to tell everyone there is a mail problem or that I am upgrading a router and have to reboot it so they will loose some connectivity for 2-4 mins. Another option is the ability for me to push my own ads just like the big boys do. Any of those types of new things that you can offer ISPs would encourage them to adopt a new IM server for use by their customers. Also if customers demand it then ISPs will provide it. Just like if an ISP didn't offer mail no one would sign up, the same would be turn if customers had the same type of demand for an IM server.
Actually you both need to go back and learn about telecom. A T1 isn't channelized unless you order it that way and then it is a "Channelized T1". Also ISDN uses out of bandwidth signaling, one D Channel for every 23 channels unless you share the D channel across multiple PRIs. A T1 channelized uses in-band signaling and doesn't have per channel the same bandwidth capability as PRI (which uses out of bandwidth singaling). The most data you can push across a channelized T1 channel is about 56k because it uses part of the bandwidth for singaling. If your going to tell someone they don't know what they are talking about at least have part of a clue yourself. You can order a T1 that isn't channelized for internet connectivity as a Point-to-Point circuit, and in fact it is done all the time, which has more bandwidth available than a Channelized T1 or ISDN PRI, because of the signalling methods.
This program doesn't work. It failed to detect my underclocked and overclocked AMD as well as a few of the other listed programs from here on Slashdot. I would not recommend using this program to figure out if your AMD is overclocked.
Actually that doesn't work at all. I have some under clocked AMD's here as well as an overclocked AMD I just tested and not one single program from AMD was able to identify the correctly marked speed of the CPU. Rather it showed what I had set the motherboard to.
Before Red Hat goes out looking to buy other companies they need to get their own house in order. They took Red Hat 6.0 E-Commerce off the market then released Red Hat 6.1 but didn't re-release a 6.1 E-Commerce package with all the original software from the first time around. They also love to come out with new features and tout them on their box and then they don't provide any documentation for how to use them or set them up at all for example: Software RAID High-Availabilty LDAP
What is the point of annoucing these great features if you never tell anyone how to use them? DOH!
Oh you mean the high quality NDS that is not native NDS and doesn't support IP but only IPX that Caldera uses? It doesn't matter since Novell is going to OpenSource their native NDS 8.0 version here in the next few months.
Well Red Hat releases all their software under the GPL, as well as most of the other Linux distributors. Caldera is one of the few exceptions. They didn't OpenSource the Netscape FastTrack e-commerce server but it wasn't theirs to do. Also they didn't OpenSource the Novell NDS stuff but that may soon be pointless since I have heard from several Novell higher ups that Novell is strongly thinking of OpenSourcing their NDS to all platforms especially Linux. If that happens then there really isn't that much that distros have that are propriatary. Caldera has their own installer (Lizard) that they are opensourcing and that and some other things they are opensourcing but not much commercial software anymore.
I personally don't worry about it to much at this point.
Why would Linux users really want to mess with Real Audio as compaired to QuickTime. At least with QuickTime there is a open source streaming server available for Linux, there isn't such a thing for Real Audio.
They will probably ammend their license to be like what TurboLinux Cluster did when Bruce Perens contact them about their GPL/Beta license conflict. They just ammended the web page to say this License covers everything we made that doesn't already have an existing GPL or other license. http://beta.turbolinux.com/cluster/license/clust er-license.html If you read it you will see what I am talking about. I think this is a resonable and fair way to handle it for TurboLinux. I think Corel should do the same type of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that the DMCA allows you to circumvent the copy protection of software and hardware in order to develop an inter-operable device or program. Also the DMCA specifically says that leaving out the copy protection of a device for inter-operability is *NOT* a violation of the DMCA. Nor is defeating/removing the copy protection in order to figure out how to make something inter-operable. Please note the 2 quotes below or read the entire law yourself at:
l #c hapter12
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.htm
DMCA Section 1201-bc3
"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, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)."
DMCA Section 1201-f
" Reverse Engineering.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
You said that "Blizzard enjoys a relatively low amount of piracy of it's games that are played online." If this is true this would seem to indicate that bnetd is not a factor at all in online piracy since the project has existed for the past 3-4 years and at least the past 2 years in a very playable form.
So you have refuted your own arguement with your own words.
How is it that your able to on battle.net behind a firewall? What's that you can't? Hmm guess you shouldn't have blow off bnetd so quickly. Oh you hate the dupers and the number of people who ruin playing games online and you can't do anything about it? Hmm bnetd would have fixed that. Oh your in a foreign country and your latency is so bad no one will play with you? Hmm guess you shouldn't have kissed off bnetd so fast.
See a pattern here? If not, well I am suprised you play online at all then.
Actually a lot of people use it to play from behind a firewall, since you can't do it any other way. Also how about the nasty server splits or when the servers are to too full or when they simply keep dumping you in the middle of games? Or what about dealing with some of the dupers or jerks who just ruin the whole game?
These are all legit uses for bnetd. Guess there are legitimate uses. I guess I just went to greath lengths to justify uses, NOT!
Being the web site ISP in question. I specifically ask the Blizzard lawyers this question and was told "absolutely not would they provide that, or give it to us" and "its beside the point of the issue at hand"
So the short answer is NO, not in this life time.
Tim Jung
System Admin
Internet Gateway Inc.
Packet dumps of what is going on between the client and the server were exactly how the protocols for connecting to the servers were done I believe. I have several of the packet dump files here that people sent in to various of the developers to help fix bugs and figure out how things were suppose to be done.
Well I talked with Blizzards lawyers about this. They claim the problem is that bnetd doesn't have the CD-KEY anti-piracy that their servers have. Thus anyone with pirated copy can play online with bnetd but not on battle.net, thus we are encouraging piracy by providing a place for people with pirate copies to play online.
I suspect the real reason is the Warcraft 3 BETA mess. Combine this with the issue of other groups (http://www.madgrfx.com/warforge.html, http://www.clan519.com/, and a group on DALnet #bnetd) trying to say that they were the bnetd group and began working to support the Warcraft 3 BETA being pirated everywhere. Well I am sure that didn't help things at all.
Umm I don't know where you got your information but right there on the IBM site it tells you there is an Enterprise edition of WebSphere for Linux.
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/
>Build, run and manage high-volume Web sites with
>WebSphere Application Server Enterprise
>Edition.
Try reading a little closer before you try and tell the world what is plainly written on the IBM web site.
Given the large number of lawsuites by employees against employers for hostile work environments due to sexual material and other inapporpriate material available over the internet and on computer screens in the work place. How do you see reconsiling the legal issues with the freedom everyone wants to see on the internet and some of the anti-censor mentality that some groups hold up? Also what do you see about the liability of schools who allow kids access to material that in other formats would be illegal or questionable at best? How should schools respond to these issues in light of their legal duties as well as in light of not being a censor?
It is easy to say don't censor anything but the reality and legality of it is different. I don't think the issues are quite as clear cut as some people would like to think.
Anyone notice that you can't just buy a server certificate anymore from Verisign. They want to sell you a whole package deal of services and other things for 128 bit certificates.
http://www.verisign.com/server/prd/g/index.html
I also don't like the fact there is now no competition to Verisign and that they have huge requirements and slow to respond to problems and can't track documents within their own company that you send them. If you can't do everything the Verisign way then God help you since they will drag everything out forever and loose documentation you send them.
I also see they are buying Signio E-Commerce payment service for busines to business e-commerce transactions. Where will they stop, they are starting to sound like they want to be like Microsoft only they want to control all secure and E-Commerce stuff on the internet.
Verisign also charges more or at least use to charge more for basic secure certificates. Looks like the days og just buying a certificate for your server are over. Now you have to buy a whole package of services and you probably won't be able to get wildcat certificates any more either. Which is a real problem since I shouldn't have to pay $950*x just for a few servers in my own domain for easier adminstration purposes to do internal stuff via a secure web page.
This just plain sucks!
I don't see any major news magazines reporting this. I don't see even any thing to back this up like a comment from WebTV or Microsoft or the people involved. How do we know that this web site didn't just post something they heard with no factual double checking as reporters are suppose to do. This is one of my main complaints about the internet is that anyone can make a web page and post any information they want, but it doesn't make it true.
Any confirmation to this story at all???
Being an ISP I can tell you the simplest way to do this is to give me a reason or something service-wise that I don't already have. Say a way to instantly message all my customers or a way to push information out to them automaticly when they come online. The ability to tell everyone there is a mail problem or that I am upgrading a router and have to reboot it so they will loose some connectivity for 2-4 mins.
Another option is the ability for me to push my own ads just like the big boys do. Any of those types of new things that you can offer ISPs would encourage them to adopt a new IM server for use by their customers. Also if customers demand it then ISPs will provide it. Just like if an ISP didn't offer mail no one would sign up, the same would be turn if customers had the same type of demand for an IM server.
Actually you both need to go back and learn about telecom. A T1 isn't channelized unless you order it that way and then it is a "Channelized T1". Also ISDN uses out of bandwidth signaling, one D Channel for every 23 channels unless you share the D channel across multiple PRIs. A T1 channelized uses in-band signaling and doesn't have per channel the same bandwidth capability as PRI (which uses out of bandwidth singaling). The most data you can push across a channelized T1 channel is about 56k because it uses part of the bandwidth for singaling.
If your going to tell someone they don't know what they are talking about at least have part of a clue yourself.
You can order a T1 that isn't channelized for internet connectivity as a Point-to-Point circuit, and in fact it is done all the time, which has more bandwidth available than a Channelized T1 or ISDN PRI, because of the signalling methods.
This program doesn't work. It failed to detect my underclocked and overclocked AMD as well as a few of the other listed programs from here on Slashdot. I would not recommend using this program to figure out if your AMD is overclocked.
Actually that doesn't work at all. I have some under clocked AMD's here as well as an overclocked AMD I just tested and not one single program from AMD was able to identify the correctly marked speed of the CPU. Rather it showed what I had set the motherboard to.
They also love to come out with new features and tout them on their box and then they don't provide any documentation for how to use them or set them up at all for example:
Software RAID
High-Availabilty
LDAP
What is the point of annoucing these great features if you never tell anyone how to use them? DOH!
Oh you mean the high quality NDS that is not native NDS and doesn't support IP but only IPX that Caldera uses? It doesn't matter since Novell is going to OpenSource their native NDS 8.0 version here in the next few months.
Well Red Hat releases all their software under the GPL, as well as most of the other Linux distributors. Caldera is one of the few exceptions. They didn't OpenSource the Netscape FastTrack e-commerce server but it wasn't theirs to do. Also they didn't OpenSource the Novell NDS stuff but that may soon be pointless since I have heard from several Novell higher ups that Novell is strongly thinking of OpenSourcing their NDS to all platforms especially Linux. If that happens then there really isn't that much that distros have that are propriatary. Caldera has their own installer (Lizard) that they are opensourcing and that and some other things they are opensourcing but not much commercial software anymore.
I personally don't worry about it to much at this point.
Why would Linux users really want to mess with Real Audio as compaired to QuickTime. At least with QuickTime there is a open source streaming server available for Linux, there isn't such a thing for Real Audio.
Anyone have a reason for one over the other?
They will probably ammend their license to be like what TurboLinux Cluster did when Bruce Perens contact them about their GPL/Beta license conflict. They just ammended the web page to say this License covers everything we made that doesn't already have an existing GPL or other license.t er-license.html
http://beta.turbolinux.com/cluster/license/clus
If you read it you will see what I am talking about. I think this is a resonable and fair way to handle it for TurboLinux. I think Corel should do the same type of thing.