Again, Google does not filter by IP addresses. Which, as the mentioned comment describes, is the only way for one to identify it being on the same machine. This does not invalidate anything I have said so far.
You should have stuck to your AC account to avoid embarrassment.
I suspect you knew you were wrong (perhaps even lying) from the beginning and why you remain as such.
1) Somebody at Google decided that a site hosted on a shared server run by a very small company was bad.
Incorrect, a site was flagged by some users as being "bad".
2) They added this bad site's URL to the block list.
After Google confirms this, they would of added/A/ URL to the blocklist, be it some wildcard matching or such. Such as they did with mine.nu. where they blacklisted "http*://*.mine.nu/*" - Impossible to blacklist sites that do not have ".mine.nu/" in them.
3) The PERSON (not script--you keep using the word "matched" as if you think this is a script) at Google mistakenly believed the entire server to be a bad egg. Perhaps there were other malicious sites on there and he judged them all to be bad. Here is an example of a server with many bad sites on it: http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.a-big-huge-giant-clits-hairy-wet-cunts.com (notice how websiteoutlook is able to tell that they are on the same server. This is NOT witchery, it's an easy thing to tell). Google clearly likes to take all of the sites down in one swoop.
websiteoutlook.com is the domain, and yes, it's possible that Google filtered the domain. They do not however add filters to blacklist IP addresses. If this company did indeed have it's own site on it's own domain, this is not possible.
4) Every site on the server was blacklisted by URL, including the innocent site.
Again, they should of got their own domain. 6USD a year for a company is not going to break their budget, if it is, the company is dead already. Additionally, I do not believe when they became aware of the situation that they couldn't of done anything about it, such as.. Oh, I don't don't know.. Getting their own domain perhaps?
DO YOU GET IT NOW
I understand this company was extremely unprofessional because the examples you give me lead me to believe it did not truly have it's own domain. I also believe this company was not doing so well, since apparently it couldn't maintain business long enough to resolve the situation.
In fact, I even suspect that this whole business thing you came up with was a completely hypothetical situation that never occured.
I didn't say that! Why can't you understand *ANYTHING*? The site was hosted on the same *server* as a malicious site. The site had its own domain, it was just on a shared hosting machine that Google mistakenly judged to be a network of malicious sites.
Google does not match by IP addresses and in this case, this would be the only way they could 'detect' the same site being used on the same machine.
No, Google doesn't filter by IP address. But because the site was hosted on the same server as a bad site it added a URL block for the innocent too. Do you see?
Doesn't sound like a very professional business if it was using the same domain that the bad site was on. Considering one can get a.com for 6USD a year, there really is no excuse.
It's about customers who did and were told that the site they had browsed to was malicious. The business lost a valuable customer this way and folded.
This company obviously wasn't doing very well to begin with, or did things properly to begin with either - This is not surprising.
You are not going to convince me that they couldn't of done anything to change the outcome, even when they became aware of the situation.
What I do find interesting is the fact you claim Google did this, when the anti-phishing filter in the most popular browser, IE is ran by Microsoft. The most popular search engine is Yahoo! - which does not using any phishing data from Google.
The same way the RIAA sues people for filesharing.. subpoena for their IP..etc
I'm reminded of the fake MSN profiles my school mates used to make in high school on school computers of other students. While they had hilarious content, it was quite obvious that it wasn't real.
I wonder what they have to say about the fact that the game was already cracked before the release date, and more than half a million people pirated it in the first week alone? How do they still justify that it prevents piracy?
Obviously that they need tighter controls and better restrictions.
Then I don't get the game. I'm trying to punish EA. Not me.
Again, your actions aren't considering punishing.
Why? It clearly doesn't work otherwise my actions would be impossible.
It prevents casual copy of the original game media, and obviously you just reinforce the idea that people will. You're going to end up pushing these companies to do more invasive DRM schemes or even change how they do games all together, such as, using the World of Warcraft model to DRM.
They see it as a lost sale. They don't see someone not buying it as a lost sale.
I can only use the account on one computer if I'm in online mode
Only for the friends network. Everything else works online. I've ran Team Fortress 2 on one computer while running Half Life 2: Death match on another (For a short time, I was helping admin a hl2dm server).
It's not a moral argument about whether stores have the "right" to sell used games, or people have the right to buy them. But there's a practical argument. All (traditional) game companies need to sell games to make money, so they can pay their employees and make more games. We don't get any $ from used sales, so every time a person who would have bought a new copy saves $5 and buys a used copy, we lose some money.
There's another practical argument that many game stores apparently can't stay in business if it were not for the money they make of used sales.
...no one has said it outright: DRM (and plain old copy protection if you care for the distinciton) only punishes those who care to buy the software. While this might not have been the intent this is the reality of the matter.
It also stops casual copying of the game from it's original disc.
You could also do that by simply not getting the game at all and posting such as a review on a site like amazon.com - that you won't buy the game for that reason.
Your current actions however, can just be seen to reinforce EA's policy on continuing to use DRM. It isn't punishing EA, as you're also bringing the perception that their game is so great, you have to get it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, Google does not filter by IP addresses. Which, as the mentioned comment describes, is the only way for one to identify it being on the same machine. This does not invalidate anything I have said so far.
I suspect you knew you were wrong (perhaps even lying) from the beginning and why you remain as such.
A attack on my character, how sweet of you.
Incorrect, a site was flagged by some users as being "bad".
After Google confirms this, they would of added /A/ URL to the blocklist, be it some wildcard matching or such. Such as they did with mine.nu. where they blacklisted "http*://*.mine.nu/*" - Impossible to blacklist sites that do not have ".mine.nu/" in them.
websiteoutlook.com is the domain, and yes, it's possible that Google filtered the domain. They do not however add filters to blacklist IP addresses. If this company did indeed have it's own site on it's own domain, this is not possible.
Again, they should of got their own domain. 6USD a year for a company is not going to break their budget, if it is, the company is dead already. Additionally, I do not believe when they became aware of the situation that they couldn't of done anything about it, such as.. Oh, I don't don't know.. Getting their own domain perhaps?
I understand this company was extremely unprofessional because the examples you give me lead me to believe it did not truly have it's own domain. I also believe this company was not doing so well, since apparently it couldn't maintain business long enough to resolve the situation.
In fact, I even suspect that this whole business thing you came up with was a completely hypothetical situation that never occured.
Google does not match by IP addresses and in this case, this would be the only way they could 'detect' the same site being used on the same machine.
No.
Doesn't sound like a very professional business if it was using the same domain that the bad site was on. Considering one can get a .com for 6USD a year, there really is no excuse.
This company obviously wasn't doing very well to begin with, or did things properly to begin with either - This is not surprising.
You are not going to convince me that they couldn't of done anything to change the outcome, even when they became aware of the situation.
What I do find interesting is the fact you claim Google did this, when the anti-phishing filter in the most popular browser, IE is ran by Microsoft. The most popular search engine is Yahoo! - which does not using any phishing data from Google.
Google doesn't filter based on IP addresses, but hostnames and URLs.
If you don't like it, don't use it. It's not like you don't have any alternatives.
I'm reminded of the fake MSN profiles my school mates used to make in high school on school computers of other students. While they had hilarious content, it was quite obvious that it wasn't real.
I use a online alias because I think it sounds cooler/better. It reflects myself much better.
So, how do you find the legal information for the creator? They didn't use their own information when creating the account.
5) Use an online alias.
Redhat, Novell have open source apps because apps are not their co.. Oh wait, they are.
Your logical argument has flaws.
HOLY S***!!!! Someone is holding up a beer can in a picture and smiling. No self respecting person would ever do that!
I don't own a TV. Nor do I pay for TV licensing.
Obviously that they need tighter controls and better restrictions.
It has stopped casual copying of the original media. Which, as I recall was a much more epic issue in the past in the software industry.
Again, your actions aren't considering punishing.
It prevents casual copy of the original game media, and obviously you just reinforce the idea that people will. You're going to end up pushing these companies to do more invasive DRM schemes or even change how they do games all together, such as, using the World of Warcraft model to DRM.
That's just what they argue legally in court.
Only for the friends network. Everything else works online. I've ran Team Fortress 2 on one computer while running Half Life 2: Death match on another (For a short time, I was helping admin a hl2dm server).
Don't worry, "Leopard is the world's most advanced operating system. So advanced, it even lets you run Windows if there's a PC application you need to use"
I don't see what you're complaining about when Apple makes such an awesome operating system!
There's another practical argument that many game stores apparently can't stay in business if it were not for the money they make of used sales.
To stay in business.
It also stops casual copying of the game from it's original disc.
You could also do that by simply not getting the game at all and posting such as a review on a site like amazon.com - that you won't buy the game for that reason.
Your current actions however, can just be seen to reinforce EA's policy on continuing to use DRM. It isn't punishing EA, as you're also bringing the perception that their game is so great, you have to get it anyway.
It is obviously ensured that you can with the cracks floating around. However, I don't believe you didn't realize this.
What gives you the right to pirate this game?
You don't own any legitimate copy, you're not a customer, you have no right to play a game just because you want to play it.
They seem to be succeeding.
The RIAA considers any duplications (including copying of files, ripping) of music to be illegal even for personal use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software