An interesting article, but seems to be missing a ton of research.
That article completely reversed the actual story on the Nintendo vs. Blockbuster lawsuit. Nintendo won part of their case against Blockbuster for copyright infringement because Blockbuster was handing out photocopied manuals with the games. After the lawsuit, BBV could only either hand out the original manual (which were often never returned or damaged) or a short generic instruction sheet.
The article also completely skips some of the more important lawsuits. Atari v Coleco (the mother of all emulation lawsuits), Nintendo v Prima (game maps ruled not copyright infringment), Nintendo v Color Dreams (an interesting case of clean-room reverse engineering), Sega v Accolade (another case of working around a lockout), Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft vs. Lik Sang (mod chips and flash carts), Sony vs. Bleem! (more emulation fun), and doesn't even begin to address the huge effects the DMCA had on the whole industry.
First of all, the review posted on the Video Game Ombudsman as "Chris Buzan's GameFAQs PSP Review", isn't. While it is indeed a part of the review he submitted, it's been edited down from what was actually posted (and subsequently removed) from GameFAQs.
But more to the point, while some people think GameFAQs is operated by a faceless corporation known only in whispered tones as "CNET", in reality very little has changed from the days in which I ran the site all by myself. GameFAQs receives hundreds of codes, reviews, FAQs, and game saves from contributors every week, and they are all reviewed and approved or rejected by a staff of two, including myself. While we do check every submission that comes to us, we don't always get it right. This is precisely why we have a Contributor Problem report form, so any registered user can report anything we've posted that "slipped by" us.
We review these complaints, determine if they're justified, and if we feel they are, we take appropriate action. That's how our system works, that's exactly how it worked in this case (both times the reviews were posted, they were subsequently reported by site visitors), and we probably remove eight or nine reviews a month out of the few hundred that are posted in this manner. These removals are not influenced by any advertiser or by management, but by our other users.
Of course, since our users are the ones that report problems with reviews, it should come as no surprise that when a review with a low score is posted for a very popular game or system, it will draw more than its fair share of complaints. Likewise, a review scoring "11/10 Best Game Evar!!" won't draw that level of scrutiny, even if poorly written. This is a phenomenon not unique to GameFAQs, but to any community on the Internet or off; those who go against the norm will always receive more attention, and their flaws are much more likely to be pointed out.
To sum up: Did we remove the reviews of Mr. Buzan and others bashing the PSP? Yes. Do we remove similar reviews bashing other systems and games on a regular basis? Yes. Is this whole thing blown way out of proportion? Oh, yes.
No provider of services is going to take on any customer they see as a potential liability. This is why almost any provider you see is going to have restrictions on use of their services, especially thanks to the DMCA.
The few providers that have a completely "hands off" approach to their customers tend to have customers who traditionally deal in spam, pr0n, copyright violations, or some combination thereof. Those are sites you likely wouldn't want to be associated with, and those kind of providers also tend to get blackholed and/or sued on occasion.
Co-location is also an option others have mentioned, but the same basic rules will likely apply (no spam/pr0n/warez, pay by the byte) with any solid provider. It's also not for the beginner, and definitely not for anyone who's not incredibly serious about their site.
It sounds like you're looking for a great new car, regardless of price, that has no or fixed fuel costs no matter how much you drive it. You're not going to find one. You can't have a web site without some kind of bandwidth limitation, be it physical or financial.
Bandwidth is the primary cost of every web host on the Internet. The backbone providers allow a specific amount of bandwidth for a specific price, and resellers carve up that bandwidth for sale to you (or to other resellers) at smaller prices for smaller amounts of data transfer.
As you might imagine, it's usually a good idea to avoid any provider who promises "Unlimited Bandwidth". They're lying. Anyone who says that really means, "Unlimited Bandwidth, Unless You Use More Than We Think You Should".
The owners of BattleBots (the event/Comedy Central show) have been in existence long before the battlebots.org domain. BattleBots was on the air on Comedy Central before the.org domain was regged, folks, so I don't think there's any doubt that this is a case of cybersquatting, and a case of patently false information in the story that should be corrected by/..
From the USPTO Database:
Word Mark BATTLEBOTS
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots.
Filing Date April 12, 1999
From NSI:
Domain Name: battlebots.org
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41
Last month, I was going through my own records at NetSol to see which of my domains were in need of renewal, when I found one had actually been taken from me. It turns out as part of a "bulk transfer" to Register.com, one of the domains I owned had been transferred not just to Register.com, but to another registrant as well. I was never informed of this transfer (much less asked for approval), but it took place anyway.
After tons of phone calls, e-mails, and faxes, I finally manged to get them to return control of the domain after challenging them to provide some shred of evidence that I had actually authorized the change. They never really came forward as to what happened, but with the ease at which the domain was taken originally, I'm actually very glad that NetSol is taking these steps.
...and now watch people bash Microsoft for incorporating the same thing into a game console.
This puts the power to censor potentially offensive material in video games in the _only_ place it belongs: the home.
Any parent who doesn't want their kids playing M-Rated games on a machine can set a switch, and take that kind of responsibility away from the retailers and game makers who don't really want it and don't really do much with it.
The ESRB ratings are a massive failure when you consider that it's enforced by the teenagers and young adults who are the primary workforce at retail stores that sell games. Since the ratings were introduced some n years ago, I've honestly never seen a single child or under-17 teenager prevented from purchasing an M Rated title, which are some of the biggest selling games available (i.e. Resident Evil, Parasite Eve).
I think someone's mis-read this... The ISDA is cracking down on the _marketing_ of M-rated games to minors, not the _exposure_ of them.
PC Gamer (and every other magazine of choice) is going to do a full 20-page spread on Doom III, paying special attention to all of the different body parts that go flying when someone gets gibbed. Just because Activision won't be paying for a 2-page ad for the game in that same magazine will not affect sales of the title one drop.
If a game company really wants to promote an M-rated title, they'll just buy a few spreads for some of their non-M games in return for a promise of some "preview" coverage, which is much more likely to be read anyway.
The game companies will just find more creative ways to promote their product without directly advertising them. The IDSA will claim victory, Lieberman will claim victory, the game companies will claim victory. Everybody's happy, and the public at large won't notice a thing...
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting article, but seems to be missing a ton of research.
That article completely reversed the actual story on the Nintendo vs. Blockbuster lawsuit. Nintendo won part of their case against Blockbuster for copyright infringement because Blockbuster was handing out photocopied manuals with the games. After the lawsuit, BBV could only either hand out the original manual (which were often never returned or damaged) or a short generic instruction sheet.
The article also completely skips some of the more important lawsuits. Atari v Coleco (the mother of all emulation lawsuits), Nintendo v Prima (game maps ruled not copyright infringment), Nintendo v Color Dreams (an interesting case of clean-room reverse engineering), Sega v Accolade (another case of working around a lockout), Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft vs. Lik Sang (mod chips and flash carts), Sony vs. Bleem! (more emulation fun), and doesn't even begin to address the huge effects the DMCA had on the whole industry.
First of all, the review posted on the Video Game Ombudsman as "Chris Buzan's GameFAQs PSP Review", isn't. While it is indeed a part of the review he submitted, it's been edited down from what was actually posted (and subsequently removed) from GameFAQs.
But more to the point, while some people think GameFAQs is operated by a faceless corporation known only in whispered tones as "CNET", in reality very little has changed from the days in which I ran the site all by myself. GameFAQs receives hundreds of codes, reviews, FAQs, and game saves from contributors every week, and they are all reviewed and approved or rejected by a staff of two, including myself. While we do check every submission that comes to us, we don't always get it right. This is precisely why we have a Contributor Problem report form, so any registered user can report anything we've posted that "slipped by" us.
We review these complaints, determine if they're justified, and if we feel they are, we take appropriate action. That's how our system works, that's exactly how it worked in this case (both times the reviews were posted, they were subsequently reported by site visitors), and we probably remove eight or nine reviews a month out of the few hundred that are posted in this manner. These removals are not influenced by any advertiser or by management, but by our other users.
Of course, since our users are the ones that report problems with reviews, it should come as no surprise that when a review with a low score is posted for a very popular game or system, it will draw more than its fair share of complaints. Likewise, a review scoring "11/10 Best Game Evar!!" won't draw that level of scrutiny, even if poorly written. This is a phenomenon not unique to GameFAQs, but to any community on the Internet or off; those who go against the norm will always receive more attention, and their flaws are much more likely to be pointed out.
To sum up: Did we remove the reviews of Mr. Buzan and others bashing the PSP? Yes. Do we remove similar reviews bashing other systems and games on a regular basis? Yes. Is this whole thing blown way out of proportion? Oh, yes.
Jeff "CJayC" Veasey
Senior Editor, GameFAQs
No provider of services is going to take on any customer they see as a potential liability. This is why almost any provider you see is going to have restrictions on use of their services, especially thanks to the DMCA.
The few providers that have a completely "hands off" approach to their customers tend to have customers who traditionally deal in spam, pr0n, copyright violations, or some combination thereof. Those are sites you likely wouldn't want to be associated with, and those kind of providers also tend to get blackholed and/or sued on occasion.
Co-location is also an option others have mentioned, but the same basic rules will likely apply (no spam/pr0n/warez, pay by the byte) with any solid provider. It's also not for the beginner, and definitely not for anyone who's not incredibly serious about their site.
It sounds like you're looking for a great new car, regardless of price, that has no or fixed fuel costs no matter how much you drive it. You're not going to find one. You can't have a web site without some kind of bandwidth limitation, be it physical or financial.
Bandwidth is the primary cost of every web host on the Internet. The backbone providers allow a specific amount of bandwidth for a specific price, and resellers carve up that bandwidth for sale to you (or to other resellers) at smaller prices for smaller amounts of data transfer.
As you might imagine, it's usually a good idea to avoid any provider who promises "Unlimited Bandwidth". They're lying. Anyone who says that really means, "Unlimited Bandwidth, Unless You Use More Than We Think You Should".
The owners of BattleBots (the event/Comedy Central show) have been in existence long before the battlebots.org domain. BattleBots was on the air on Comedy Central before the .org domain was regged, folks, so I don't think there's any doubt that this is a case of cybersquatting, and a case of patently false information in the story that should be corrected by /..
From the USPTO Database:
Word Mark BATTLEBOTS
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots.
Filing Date April 12, 1999
From NSI:
Domain Name: battlebots.org
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41
Last month, I was going through my own records at NetSol to see which of my domains were in need of renewal, when I found one had actually been taken from me. It turns out as part of a "bulk transfer" to Register.com, one of the domains I owned had been transferred not just to Register.com, but to another registrant as well. I was never informed of this transfer (much less asked for approval), but it took place anyway.
After tons of phone calls, e-mails, and faxes, I finally manged to get them to return control of the domain after challenging them to provide some shred of evidence that I had actually authorized the change. They never really came forward as to what happened, but with the ease at which the domain was taken originally, I'm actually very glad that NetSol is taking these steps.
...and now watch people bash Microsoft for incorporating the same thing into a game console.
This puts the power to censor potentially offensive material in video games in the _only_ place it belongs: the home.
Any parent who doesn't want their kids playing M-Rated games on a machine can set a switch, and take that kind of responsibility away from the retailers and game makers who don't really want it and don't really do much with it.
The ESRB ratings are a massive failure when you consider that it's enforced by the teenagers and young adults who are the primary workforce at retail stores that sell games. Since the ratings were introduced some n years ago, I've honestly never seen a single child or under-17 teenager prevented from purchasing an M Rated title, which are some of the biggest selling games available (i.e. Resident Evil, Parasite Eve).
I think someone's mis-read this... The ISDA is cracking down on the _marketing_ of M-rated games to minors, not the _exposure_ of them.
PC Gamer (and every other magazine of choice) is going to do a full 20-page spread on Doom III, paying special attention to all of the different body parts that go flying when someone gets gibbed. Just because Activision won't be paying for a 2-page ad for the game in that same magazine will not affect sales of the title one drop.
If a game company really wants to promote an M-rated title, they'll just buy a few spreads for some of their non-M games in return for a promise of some "preview" coverage, which is much more likely to be read anyway.
The game companies will just find more creative ways to promote their product without directly advertising them. The IDSA will claim victory, Lieberman will claim victory, the game companies will claim victory. Everybody's happy, and the public at large won't notice a thing...