You either need to look up the definiation of monoculture or actually educate yourself on the underpinnings of OpenID. You obviously misunderstand one or the other.
Monoculture means everyone depends on the exact same thing. OpenID is not only the exact opposite, providing control over how you are authenticated to you, but it provides an almost immediate method of mitigating an attack. Someone take over your authentication server? Use a different one.
You tell a site that you are "JimBob" of "random URL". The site goes to the random URL, which has listed (somewhere, there is more than one way to provide the information) a server that is authorized to authenticate that you are truely "JimBob" of "random URL".
The site then goes to the authentication server, passes control to it for you to authenticate, and waits to be told who you are. The authentication server does it's jig and passes back the results.
The idea is, if you decide to change authentication servers, or even roll your own, you have control over "random URL" and thus can change what server is being listed as the 'offical' authenticator for "JimBob" of "random URL".
This provides you ultimate control, and you aren't passing anything to anyone that you haven't choosen to trust.
The problem is, at least for me, is almost all of these big name companies are providers (i.e. authenticators) and not consumers. On top of it, I haven't had any luck on getting these providers setup as authenticators for anything other than their own domains. I.E. I can be JimBob at Yahoo.com, and JimBob at Blogger.com, and JimBob at Facebook.com, but I can't set any of them up to authenticate me as "JimBob" of "random URL". Which completely destroys any utility of their membership in this group.
Also the true discovery, according to the article, is that nitrogen actually works against the process (in that controlling the amount of nitrogen that went into the lake actually caused more damage). This goes against the current trend of thinking that the two (phosphorus and nitrogen) were working in conjunction.
The only game someone has written the requisite savegame file to enable taking advantage of the bug is TP. The people who are currently maintaining that have stated that it'd be fairly easy for them to find other games should Nintendo actually come up with a way to block this bug in TP. But I imagine it's easier to use a game actually published by Nintendo than a shovelware game that might be cheaper but no one can find.
Having not used it, I can't attest that it works perfectly. But you don't need this firmware to do that, there is already a homebrew 'region free' app out there.
This firmware isn't what is needed to run custom code, it's just an additional layer of the onion being pealed back to allow people to do more with their Wii.
If you aren't familiar with the state of homebrew on the Wii, here's a quick and only partially informed synopsis. I'm not hooked in sufficently to have history book accuracy.
Near the begining of the year, folk discovered a bug in Zelda:Twilight Princess that allowed them to do a stack smash and allow them to bypass the code that prevents 'unauthorized' programs from running. However, at that time you had to use the bug each time you wanted to load a program.
About a month ago, a team of coders released a custom built channel (The Homebrew Channel - HBC) that could be installed using the TP hack. The channel allowed you to launch homebrew apps from your memory card directly, (i.e. once installed you didn't need the TP hack).
Thats when alot of the programs avaliable right now took off.
This firmware is the next level. Another layer of the onion being pealed back. As I understand it, the Wii actually keeps a copy of all the versions of firmware that are installed on it, for compatibility purposes, and loads the version games specificly ask for. So this doesn't actually do anything directly except allow programs that are written to ASK for the new firmware to enjoy the new level of access provided. That's why you can't use this to play copies, because the copy of the game would still be asking for the offical Nintendo firmware, which would then detect that it's a copy.
I'm at work right now so I can't look up the name of the region free program. I believe it's something similar to "Gecko Region Free".
From reading about it, it sounded as if you just launched the program, then inserted your imported game and hit a button to reset the machine. From there, you were good to go as long as the game didnt' try to install region specific stuff (i.e. like the WiiFit channel or system updates from Smash Bros) and even then there were work arounds.
Actually no you can't. It was even stated in the summary this only works for homebrew software, not comercial rips, and on purpose. The people who are doing most of the cool stuff in the Wii Homebrew scene are fairly ethical folk.
What this should mean however, is now people can start making DVD's of their homebrew software and popping it in like a normal game instead of having to cram everything in a 'small' memory card.
They have/are working on ports of Mplayer, I haven't installed it yet but given it can handle dvd's and this firmware will allow access to the DVD, it sounds reasonable to believe that if you can't yet, it's only a matter of time.
There is the Mt Everest answer and there is the "it isn't as weak as you make it out to be" answer. I don't plan on installing this firmware (not till the first wave of guiniea pigs test it for me ^_^), but I do have several Wiibrew games installed, some of which are WiiPorts of old games that have been released to the wild (GPL'ed or put in the public domain) and though the Wii homebrew scene isn't quite as polished as say the DS homebrew scene, they still have some impressive things out already.
In the end though, the real question is "why not?" Do you only drive your car from home to work and back again? Sometimes something doesn't have to have a strict utility or direct benefit to have fun doing it.
Your response to my comment about GPLed and BSDed code shows that you didn't get the point I was making, which is that the spirit of releasing code under the GPL or BSD is to SHARE and encourage others to do so as well. Not, to take the fruits of others, add a bit of your own work, and then horde the whole thing as if you had created the whole set.
And the comment about the Wii is pointless, given A.) Someone replied to the exact same post you were refering to with the correct answer, which is "And if Nintendo did it, they'd be just as wrong." and B.) While there may be no Wii emulators out there yet, the fact that there are emulators out there for EVERY single other console and handheld Ninitendo has made sorta indicates there will be one for the Wii as soon as someone can make it.
As far as the point about Apple not being in the same business as Microsoft, and not having the market control Microsoft does. Neither did MS when that first suit came across. That was the point.
As far as the opinion that Apple 'is' the hardware and so they get to run the show the way they want, appearently they are NOT the hardware, or this wouldn't be happening. Would it? After all, even before Psystar, people knew how and did install OS X on normal everyday Intel PC's, didn't they?
And even if that weren't the case, the moment they sold the OS independent from the hardware, they rescinded that claim and got into the same business that MS got shot down for. Tying the purchase of one product to that of another. If you prefer to remain ignorant of the numerous cases in the past where someone in the computer industry has tried that and found out the hard way it's not legal, then just research the history of third party auto parts. You might be enlightened.
Reconsidering my position requires actually being presented information that counters it, so far you haven't done that, but you are welcome to take another shot at it.
Many Linux-compatible TV tuners come with FM tuners built-in, I suspect it's only a matter of time until they start putting HD radio tuners on those too.
Too late!!!
ASI8914 - Quad HD Raido Tuner (with linux drivers).
Microsoft is speficly disallowed to tie the sale of their OS to any other product, a result from their first anti-trust trial where they were getting in trouble for requiring people buy MS-DOS along with Windows.
Apple's OS is even based on GPL'ed or BSD'ed code, so the idea that they have a right to disallow me to install it on anything other than their own blessed hardware is especially galling. And thus as an extension, the idea that they can prevent others from selling me hardware with legitimately purchased copies of their OS installed on it, is also galling.
It'll be interesting to see where the law falls on this one. But as far as I'm concerned, Apple can suck one for this go around.
Yes, because playing on servers in another country makes it a much better user experience. Listen, I get it, hackers can always find a way around all but the most brutal copy protections. Blizzard just has to make it hard enough.
But no, you don't get it. The point wasn't hackers get away with shit. And Blizzard didn't make it 'hard enough' because they didn't care. If they cared, they would have actually utilized copy protection.
But Blizzard has a right to protect itself.
Of course they did. So why didn't they? Why didn't they force CD key checks on install? Why didn't they force CD key checks to start the game? It wouldn't have been hard, I've got a full box of cd cases from games before and after that period sitting next to my computer, all of them in the box because the games they are for require some sort of activation to work or install. Why didn't Blizzard protect itself?
For the same reason that you could install a copy of Win95 using all 1's. Because Blizzard didn't actually care. They wanted people to have their game, the more, the better. They didn't go after bnetd because it was 'assisting in pirating their game', they were morons. They knew how easy they had made it for people to share the game, because that was part of the plan of getting the marketshare.
Blizzard went after bnetd because it was something that put the gamers outside of Blizzard's control and it presented the possibility that someone else might come along and take a shot at that crack in their armor and manage to do it better. What do you think would have happened if things had evolved to the point where bnetd was at the same level as Blizzard's own Battle.Net? What if bnetd provided services Blizzard didn't? That scared Blizzard shitless.
No, this wasn't about copying any more than the lawsuit against the maker of Glider is about copyright. It's about controling what people can do with your program after you've already sold it to them.
You are acting as if Blizzard was some girl who got raped and she should just accept it because she was dressed too slutty.
There are plenty of publicly traded companies that are able to balance moral behavior and the desire to make a profit. Conversely, I've worked for privately owned companies whose owners made the Mob look like the YMCA.
It is also important to remember that while Google went public, it also did so in a way that would allow the people running it to remain in control.
Money and power are not inherently evil, regardless of the stories those without tell themselves to console their lack of the same. It is possible to make money without screwing someone over. It's possible to be in control without abusing it.
I don't think he wanted proof that bnetd was shut down, he wanted proof that shutting it down caused a bunch of people to suddenly become legit.
However, my quote does show that shutting down bnetd didn't stop the movement behind it, so if the arguement is that 'bnetd was just a piracy tool' then, no it didn't make a bunch of people go legit. They just switched venues and developed in countries where the laws were more sane regarding interoptability.
In regards to 'just a few servers in Thailand', reading about PvPGN it doesn't sound as if it's 'just a few servers' or 'in Thailand' given the list of games it now supports. It's also interesting that a number of those games are no longer supported by the companies that released them and as such, this might be the only way to play multiplayer with them anymore. ------------------- The list of supported clients and their minimum version required is:
Battle.net Diablo I 1.09 Starcraft 1.15.2 Starcraft: Brood War 1.15.2 Warcraft II Battle.Net Edition 2.02 Diablo II 1.09 and 1.10 (and unofficially 1.11b) Diablo II: Lord of Destruction 1.09 and 1.10 (and unofficially 1.11b) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos 1.21 Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne 1.21 Westwood Online Command & Conquer Win95 edition v1.04a (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Command & Conquer: Red Alert Win95 edition v2.00 and v3.03 (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun v2.03 ST-10 (Alpha in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun Firestorm (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 1.006 (Alpha in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge v1.001 (Alpha in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Command & Conquer: Renegade (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Nox v1.02b (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Nox Quest v1.02b (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Dune 2000 v1.06 (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99) Emperor: Battle for Dune v1.09 (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
That one doesn't include any information about Google sharing data, much less tons of it, either.
The article is just an indication that Google is allowing other companies to now use their network after being certified that they will follow Google's policies regarding privacy while doing so and the boundless speculation that since some of those companies use behaviour tracking outside of Google, that they must be doing with Google as well despite Google's indication that any such behaviour must be opt-in.
And given you've you've ignored both the original context and my clarification afterwards concerning my remark on the track record of Google and Viacom by insisting that it must have been about privacy, my only real assumption is that you are having a difficulty seperating what you've actually read and what you want to think you've read.
Either way, want to go for three strikes and try again?
Can you honestly say that shutting down bnetd didn't cause a lot of people who were pirating the game to go get a legitimate copy?
Why point out what Wikipedia already has for me.
As a result of the litigation, the bnetd.org domain was transferred to Blizzard's control pursuant to the consent decree entered during the trial. As recently as May 2008, the domain continues to redirect to Blizzard's battle.net website. Although Blizzard won the case, the lawsuit did not stop the continued distribution of bnetd's open source, nor of derivative projects such as PvPGN. Other hosts were quickly set up by third parties in countries where no anti-circumvention legislation equivalent to the DMCA exists.
For trying not to be the inflammatory asshole on the internet, you fail amazingly well.
Regardless, bnetd did not assist you in stealing the game. It did not contain any game code. It did not assist you in circumventing any code preventing you from installing the game.
Additionally Blizzard did not prevent you from installing a copy onto your computer and playing it. They did not prevent you from playing online with it. They only prevented you from using their online services with it. That isn't copy protection. And you know as well as I do, even back in the WarII days they knew how add copy protection to games that would require a valid CD key before you could play, online or off.
The DMCA arguement they used back then was a BS arguement which they used only because there wasn't anything actually illegal with what bnetd was doing, and that desperate grasp for straws was all they had. Sadly, an idiot precided over the case and rather than acutally rule based on the facts he just bought into what Blizzard fed him, hook, line, and sinker.
In that same article apparently given what you provided has absolutely nothing to do with data sharing, it's an article about when Google started implementing government required blocks on search terms on their China based domain.
On the other hand since my post refering to Viacom was about their track record as a company as a whole, we have the fact that Viacom is a member of the MPAA, the movie industry's version of the RIAA, and just a year ago were caught submitting false DMCA takedown notices, multipletimes.
As someone who played on a bnetd server hosted by a friend specificly so we and our clique of friends could play games against each other without dealing with the "inflammatory asshole on the internet", I'd say no I'm not retarded.
The only thing that bnetd did was enable you to play online without going through Blizzard's servers. At the start, they were even willing to set the server up to check against Blizzard's in order to keep the CD key check in place. And as far as priacy goes, given you could do everything BUT play on Blizzard's servers without a valid CD key, I hardly think that small measure could be considered "copy protection". Blizzard themselves didn't even use it as copy protection, they used it to ban the few hackers they'd catch. You'd have to be retarded to think that was an effective form of copy protection, even if the primary draw of those games was multiplayer.
So what was the fallout from that? There wasn't any.
You mean beyond bnetd being shut down or that it's now part of case law that even if you aren't actually circumventing copy protection measures but just providing an alternative server to the officially provided company one, you can be prosecuted under the DMCA because the company pretends that a game that has absolutely no copy protection installed on it is being 'protected' by disallowing banned CD keys from using the offical multiplayer server? Beyond that fallout?
Slashdot Mirror
You either need to look up the definiation of monoculture or actually educate yourself on the underpinnings of OpenID. You obviously misunderstand one or the other.
Monoculture means everyone depends on the exact same thing. OpenID is not only the exact opposite, providing control over how you are authenticated to you, but it provides an almost immediate method of mitigating an attack. Someone take over your authentication server? Use a different one.
It doesn't. And you aren't.
Implemented properly, OpenID works thusly:
You tell a site that you are "JimBob" of "random URL". The site goes to the random URL, which has listed (somewhere, there is more than one way to provide the information) a server that is authorized to authenticate that you are truely "JimBob" of "random URL".
The site then goes to the authentication server, passes control to it for you to authenticate, and waits to be told who you are. The authentication server does it's jig and passes back the results.
The idea is, if you decide to change authentication servers, or even roll your own, you have control over "random URL" and thus can change what server is being listed as the 'offical' authenticator for "JimBob" of "random URL".
This provides you ultimate control, and you aren't passing anything to anyone that you haven't choosen to trust.
The problem is, at least for me, is almost all of these big name companies are providers (i.e. authenticators) and not consumers. On top of it, I haven't had any luck on getting these providers setup as authenticators for anything other than their own domains. I.E. I can be JimBob at Yahoo.com, and JimBob at Blogger.com, and JimBob at Facebook.com, but I can't set any of them up to authenticate me as "JimBob" of "random URL". Which completely destroys any utility of their membership in this group.
Also the true discovery, according to the article, is that nitrogen actually works against the process (in that controlling the amount of nitrogen that went into the lake actually caused more damage). This goes against the current trend of thinking that the two (phosphorus and nitrogen) were working in conjunction.
I hope to God no one ever audits Stark Enterprises...
And guarantee his children will be gunning for yours generations to come.
The only game someone has written the requisite savegame file to enable taking advantage of the bug is TP. The people who are currently maintaining that have stated that it'd be fairly easy for them to find other games should Nintendo actually come up with a way to block this bug in TP. But I imagine it's easier to use a game actually published by Nintendo than a shovelware game that might be cheaper but no one can find.
Having not used it, I can't attest that it works perfectly. But you don't need this firmware to do that, there is already a homebrew 'region free' app out there.
This firmware isn't what is needed to run custom code, it's just an additional layer of the onion being pealed back to allow people to do more with their Wii.
If you aren't familiar with the state of homebrew on the Wii, here's a quick and only partially informed synopsis. I'm not hooked in sufficently to have history book accuracy.
Near the begining of the year, folk discovered a bug in Zelda:Twilight Princess that allowed them to do a stack smash and allow them to bypass the code that prevents 'unauthorized' programs from running. However, at that time you had to use the bug each time you wanted to load a program.
About a month ago, a team of coders released a custom built channel (The Homebrew Channel - HBC) that could be installed using the TP hack. The channel allowed you to launch homebrew apps from your memory card directly, (i.e. once installed you didn't need the TP hack).
Thats when alot of the programs avaliable right now took off.
This firmware is the next level. Another layer of the onion being pealed back. As I understand it, the Wii actually keeps a copy of all the versions of firmware that are installed on it, for compatibility purposes, and loads the version games specificly ask for. So this doesn't actually do anything directly except allow programs that are written to ASK for the new firmware to enjoy the new level of access provided. That's why you can't use this to play copies, because the copy of the game would still be asking for the offical Nintendo firmware, which would then detect that it's a copy.
I'm at work right now so I can't look up the name of the region free program. I believe it's something similar to "Gecko Region Free".
From reading about it, it sounded as if you just launched the program, then inserted your imported game and hit a button to reset the machine. From there, you were good to go as long as the game didnt' try to install region specific stuff (i.e. like the WiiFit channel or system updates from Smash Bros) and even then there were work arounds.
Actually no you can't. It was even stated in the summary this only works for homebrew software, not comercial rips, and on purpose. The people who are doing most of the cool stuff in the Wii Homebrew scene are fairly ethical folk.
What this should mean however, is now people can start making DVD's of their homebrew software and popping it in like a normal game instead of having to cram everything in a 'small' memory card.
They have/are working on ports of Mplayer, I haven't installed it yet but given it can handle dvd's and this firmware will allow access to the DVD, it sounds reasonable to believe that if you can't yet, it's only a matter of time.
There is the Mt Everest answer and there is the "it isn't as weak as you make it out to be" answer. I don't plan on installing this firmware (not till the first wave of guiniea pigs test it for me ^_^), but I do have several Wiibrew games installed, some of which are WiiPorts of old games that have been released to the wild (GPL'ed or put in the public domain) and though the Wii homebrew scene isn't quite as polished as say the DS homebrew scene, they still have some impressive things out already.
In the end though, the real question is "why not?" Do you only drive your car from home to work and back again? Sometimes something doesn't have to have a strict utility or direct benefit to have fun doing it.
Your response to my comment about GPLed and BSDed code shows that you didn't get the point I was making, which is that the spirit of releasing code under the GPL or BSD is to SHARE and encourage others to do so as well. Not, to take the fruits of others, add a bit of your own work, and then horde the whole thing as if you had created the whole set.
And the comment about the Wii is pointless, given A.) Someone replied to the exact same post you were refering to with the correct answer, which is "And if Nintendo did it, they'd be just as wrong." and B.) While there may be no Wii emulators out there yet, the fact that there are emulators out there for EVERY single other console and handheld Ninitendo has made sorta indicates there will be one for the Wii as soon as someone can make it.
As far as the point about Apple not being in the same business as Microsoft, and not having the market control Microsoft does. Neither did MS when that first suit came across. That was the point.
As far as the opinion that Apple 'is' the hardware and so they get to run the show the way they want, appearently they are NOT the hardware, or this wouldn't be happening. Would it? After all, even before Psystar, people knew how and did install OS X on normal everyday Intel PC's, didn't they?
And even if that weren't the case, the moment they sold the OS independent from the hardware, they rescinded that claim and got into the same business that MS got shot down for. Tying the purchase of one product to that of another. If you prefer to remain ignorant of the numerous cases in the past where someone in the computer industry has tried that and found out the hard way it's not legal, then just research the history of third party auto parts. You might be enlightened.
Reconsidering my position requires actually being presented information that counters it, so far you haven't done that, but you are welcome to take another shot at it.
Too late!!! ASI8914 - Quad HD Raido Tuner (with linux drivers).
Microsoft is speficly disallowed to tie the sale of their OS to any other product, a result from their first anti-trust trial where they were getting in trouble for requiring people buy MS-DOS along with Windows.
Apple's OS is even based on GPL'ed or BSD'ed code, so the idea that they have a right to disallow me to install it on anything other than their own blessed hardware is especially galling. And thus as an extension, the idea that they can prevent others from selling me hardware with legitimately purchased copies of their OS installed on it, is also galling.
It'll be interesting to see where the law falls on this one. But as far as I'm concerned, Apple can suck one for this go around.
Seriously? You named your project 'dildos'? You might want to rethink that acronym folks.
But no, you don't get it. The point wasn't hackers get away with shit. And Blizzard didn't make it 'hard enough' because they didn't care. If they cared, they would have actually utilized copy protection.
Of course they did. So why didn't they? Why didn't they force CD key checks on install? Why didn't they force CD key checks to start the game? It wouldn't have been hard, I've got a full box of cd cases from games before and after that period sitting next to my computer, all of them in the box because the games they are for require some sort of activation to work or install. Why didn't Blizzard protect itself?
For the same reason that you could install a copy of Win95 using all 1's. Because Blizzard didn't actually care. They wanted people to have their game, the more, the better. They didn't go after bnetd because it was 'assisting in pirating their game', they were morons. They knew how easy they had made it for people to share the game, because that was part of the plan of getting the marketshare.
Blizzard went after bnetd because it was something that put the gamers outside of Blizzard's control and it presented the possibility that someone else might come along and take a shot at that crack in their armor and manage to do it better. What do you think would have happened if things had evolved to the point where bnetd was at the same level as Blizzard's own Battle.Net? What if bnetd provided services Blizzard didn't? That scared Blizzard shitless.
No, this wasn't about copying any more than the lawsuit against the maker of Glider is about copyright. It's about controling what people can do with your program after you've already sold it to them.
Hyperbole much there?
There are plenty of publicly traded companies that are able to balance moral behavior and the desire to make a profit. Conversely, I've worked for privately owned companies whose owners made the Mob look like the YMCA.
It is also important to remember that while Google went public, it also did so in a way that would allow the people running it to remain in control.
Money and power are not inherently evil, regardless of the stories those without tell themselves to console their lack of the same. It is possible to make money without screwing someone over. It's possible to be in control without abusing it.
Google has, thus far, walked that line.
I don't think he wanted proof that bnetd was shut down, he wanted proof that shutting it down caused a bunch of people to suddenly become legit.
However, my quote does show that shutting down bnetd didn't stop the movement behind it, so if the arguement is that 'bnetd was just a piracy tool' then, no it didn't make a bunch of people go legit. They just switched venues and developed in countries where the laws were more sane regarding interoptability.
In regards to 'just a few servers in Thailand', reading about PvPGN it doesn't sound as if it's 'just a few servers' or 'in Thailand' given the list of games it now supports. It's also interesting that a number of those games are no longer supported by the companies that released them and as such, this might be the only way to play multiplayer with them anymore.
-------------------
The list of supported clients and their minimum version required is:
Battle.net
Diablo I 1.09
Starcraft 1.15.2
Starcraft: Brood War 1.15.2
Warcraft II Battle.Net Edition 2.02
Diablo II 1.09 and 1.10 (and unofficially 1.11b)
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction 1.09 and 1.10 (and unofficially 1.11b)
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos 1.21
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne 1.21
Westwood Online
Command & Conquer Win95 edition v1.04a (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Command & Conquer: Red Alert Win95 edition v2.00 and v3.03 (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun v2.03 ST-10 (Alpha in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun Firestorm (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 1.006 (Alpha in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge v1.001 (Alpha in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Command & Conquer: Renegade (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Nox v1.02b (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Nox Quest v1.02b (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Dune 2000 v1.06 (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
Emperor: Battle for Dune v1.09 (not supported in PvPGN 1.8.2, Beta in PvPGN 1.99)
That one doesn't include any information about Google sharing data, much less tons of it, either.
The article is just an indication that Google is allowing other companies to now use their network after being certified that they will follow Google's policies regarding privacy while doing so and the boundless speculation that since some of those companies use behaviour tracking outside of Google, that they must be doing with Google as well despite Google's indication that any such behaviour must be opt-in.
And given you've you've ignored both the original context and my clarification afterwards concerning my remark on the track record of Google and Viacom by insisting that it must have been about privacy, my only real assumption is that you are having a difficulty seperating what you've actually read and what you want to think you've read.
Either way, want to go for three strikes and try again?
Why point out what Wikipedia already has for me.
You should read my replies to cornflake, as they apply to both of you and the arguements.
For trying not to be the inflammatory asshole on the internet, you fail amazingly well.
Regardless, bnetd did not assist you in stealing the game. It did not contain any game code. It did not assist you in circumventing any code preventing you from installing the game.
Additionally Blizzard did not prevent you from installing a copy onto your computer and playing it. They did not prevent you from playing online with it. They only prevented you from using their online services with it. That isn't copy protection. And you know as well as I do, even back in the WarII days they knew how add copy protection to games that would require a valid CD key before you could play, online or off.
The DMCA arguement they used back then was a BS arguement which they used only because there wasn't anything actually illegal with what bnetd was doing, and that desperate grasp for straws was all they had. Sadly, an idiot precided over the case and rather than acutally rule based on the facts he just bought into what Blizzard fed him, hook, line, and sinker.
In that same article apparently given what you provided has absolutely nothing to do with data sharing, it's an article about when Google started implementing government required blocks on search terms on their China based domain.
On the other hand since my post refering to Viacom was about their track record as a company as a whole, we have the fact that Viacom is a member of the MPAA, the movie industry's version of the RIAA, and just a year ago were caught submitting false DMCA takedown notices, multiple times.
Want to try again?
And my feeling is you are subscribing to the equally irrational wannabe-fadster hate of Google.
What information is Google 'sharing tons' of? Do you have proof of this sharing or are you just tin foiling it?
As someone who played on a bnetd server hosted by a friend specificly so we and our clique of friends could play games against each other without dealing with the "inflammatory asshole on the internet", I'd say no I'm not retarded.
The only thing that bnetd did was enable you to play online without going through Blizzard's servers. At the start, they were even willing to set the server up to check against Blizzard's in order to keep the CD key check in place. And as far as priacy goes, given you could do everything BUT play on Blizzard's servers without a valid CD key, I hardly think that small measure could be considered "copy protection". Blizzard themselves didn't even use it as copy protection, they used it to ban the few hackers they'd catch. You'd have to be retarded to think that was an effective form of copy protection, even if the primary draw of those games was multiplayer.
You mean beyond bnetd being shut down or that it's now part of case law that even if you aren't actually circumventing copy protection measures but just providing an alternative server to the officially provided company one, you can be prosecuted under the DMCA because the company pretends that a game that has absolutely no copy protection installed on it is being 'protected' by disallowing banned CD keys from using the offical multiplayer server? Beyond that fallout?
Sure. Whatever you say jack.