But if this is true, we should still call the EU leaders to find out how they beat Microsoft in Europe to glean some useful tactics ^_^ </totalsmartass>
The only problem with that is that the games (theoretically) aren't being prevented from publishing. Like I said, this is in theory, but it's only to keep 'mature' content from being sold to children that have already been agreed upon to be incapable of responsibly handling such media.
So under the Wiktionary definition, yes this would classify as censorship, but so the the movie ratings system, the legal age to buy pornography and even the entire ESRB in its current form.
In response to the complaints that I've been hearing about this subject like "Why not books?" "What about movies?" "Isn't this censorship?" and so on and so forth, I have this to say:
- No, this isn't censorship because content is not being taken out. If the studios have to remove content to reach their audience, they'll find a way around regulations (they always do). Children aren't allowed to buy pornography and yet I hear no massive outcry about that. This is simply trying to keep excessively vulgar and violent games away from very young children.
- Yes, youth violence is on a constant decline as it has been for the past several years, making all these "games raising you children to kill" arguments mostly idiodic.
- Video games can be conceived of as more influential to children than books (I doubt it) and especially movies (easily so) as numerous studies suggest (keyword: suggest) that games are more powerful due to the level of interaction and feedback they require from the user.
- Books are also not being targetted because anybody who looks at social trends can tell that literacy, or at least recreational reading in the US is on the decline. The numbers aren't large enough to get a response.
But finally, games are being the scapegoat because the majority of the voting population in America doesn't understand games. By the time all those kids who were 6 or so when Nintendo first hit the US (people like me) become the major voting demographic, politicians will need to find a new target.
Then again, while I'm not defending Microsoft, here's my take on their 'security':
Yes, plenty, and maybe even most of their promises about being a generally secure system are complete and utter rubbish. However, I'm willing to bet that each of their OSes are more secure than the last one. The problem is that they still leave plenty of holes open when they do things like (to point out the landmark example) weld the web browser to the kernel. I know that most people crack windows because it's easy, but while I may be wrong on this, I think people will continue to spend thier efforts on Windows even if their security was (competely hypothetically) top-notch only because of the bad reputation that precedes them.
I'm not saying that Windows is secure or that it ever will be. However, their security has improved, regardless of how poorly. The last reason on the list to crack Windows (in my opinion) and possibly the strongest reason is that they have a history of poor security. I think script-kiddies will pour ANY amount of effort into destroying any version of Windows just to keep that idea alive.
As much as I love Linux, I really doubt that any one distro (like RedHat for example) would be able to keep their system as secure as it is now if they were the entire world's information security scapegoat as MS is now. (PS, yes I know that MS does, mostly deserve the title they hold)
(I'm not a security expert, nor am I claiming to be, so if you think I'm wrong all I ask is that you not 'correct' me with a torch ^_^)
...piece of proposed (or even passed) anti-video game legislation.
Serioulsy though, like it was mentioned in the article, these politicians are attacking video games because a lot of parents really aren't doing their job, and a lot of parents don't understand video games. By the time that the kids who were young when Nintendo first hit America (people like me) become the normal voting population, politicians will have to target something new because we'll all tell them that it's a load of crap.
In the meantime, I can only hope that enough states hop on the anti-gamer law bandwagon that Jack Thompson can't keep up with all of them. Then in the future, these laws may make it into the halls of www.dumblaws.com, pending we don't become a police state ^_^
Actually, the version of history that I'm aware of is not entirely common (to my awareness anyway) and I don't really find it very charming anyway. It's not like this is some prince valiant story about him coming in to save his game, the creator (when interviewed) basically made it seem like Namco called and said "We know you said no sequels at all, but we want another dollar so we're fucking up your game without you." and the creator trudged back into the office to, as I said, keep it from simply 'sucking less'.
I don't really see much glamour in this one when it feels like the creator was blackmailed into working on something he initially refused and still didn't like the end product despite any rave reviews. And it could be true that even this was a PR hack, but it seems a lot less likely when it makes the company look like the asshole. While the author could have said it for a pity party (I highly doubt he would need it with the large cult surrounding his first Katamari), I'd be leaning away from that theory when the interview I read made me consider NOT buying KD2.
Remember, this is the opinion of the creator. He is the one who thought the 'Christmas Skin' Katamari would suck (and I can't ever see myself buying a game on that). In the creator's (sorry, I can't remember his name) opinion, Namco would do to Katamari what the King of the Cosmos did to the night sky. I have to agree.
(I'm not an expert on this and I'm admitting it, so please be polite with your responses ^_^)
I can see some possible ups to controlling sections of the internet, but as a global tool for the spread of information, the very thing that a lot of people think the internet is designed for, it's mostly downhill.
So far, I haven't found much reason for giving up the root servers other than countries saying "I want one too". Please inform me (politely) if I am mistaken.
I'm not really sure if I can see a board of leaders controlling the internet doing anything to stablize things when they would still have to make policies that EVERYONE aggrees on. In which case, there would still be a great firewall for china, and whatever regulations a government had to ennact because they feel 'their internet' shouldn't be subject to the rules that the proclaimed world could shake hands on.
Besides, that kind of government regulation to override the global ones would require nations to set up offices to handle such legislation that would most likely be filled by aged politicians who think that broadband is a wide bracelet. So far, I haven't seen too many (a few, but still not too many) governments that had any clue about the current technologies they pass laws about.
But on a slightly brighter note, I'm glad to see something that isn't trying to overhype Firefox as the next big security risk.
That has to be worth something.^_^
Honestly though, I agree with your prediction, but I'm still a fan of reading reports like this (as long as they're good ones) because they at least have the capability to inform people (i.e. don't use practice $foo, or this is what caused that problem last week, etc.), and not just incite riots on the message board.
They're just reporting it, we're the ones that go nuts. Yay us!</toungeincheek>
To take a little from your post and the one above it, I think it's a little silly to try to find a definative category for 'hacking'. If nothing else, but for the reason that it all depends on the context in which you use it. (Pardon me for sticking to computer hacking references, but they are the most commonly known.)
- It may be perfectly fine to describe a 'hack' you came up with for getting around a particular web-design problem, and the term may be used quite freely, however...
- Use the word in a public high school and you may end up with some mock interrogation lamp in your face and threat of suspension for not explaining what you meant by photoshop 'hack'.
How I use the word isn't how my parents use it, and that isn't the way politicians (and record labels) use it either. In other words, how you categorize the word may be quite different how you can acceptably use it.
It should probably be noted that the creator of Katamari Damacy didn't want to do a sequel under any circumstances. However, Namco told him that they were considering doing a holiday version of it that basically had a christmas skin on everything. After hearing this, the creator stepped in, not so much to make a great sequel, but simply keep it from sucking less than it would have otherwise.
True, but I'm sure that the people conducting these haphazard fumblings in statistics are working on a way to link
illegal p2p use to hurting sales, to hurting the local economy, which in turn hurts the national economy, which seeks to undermine/overthrow the government,
so that eventually p2p users will be tracked down and charged with treason. So stealing a loaf of bread will get you a fine, but p2p shall get you "the rack"
I'm just dying for the RIAA to catch wind of this and pervert the study that says downloaders are more likely to buy CDs from the artists they download.
RIAA: Well of course P2P users have a lot of CDs from the bands they download...because they stole the CDs!
And then riots will brake out with all the angry labels brandishing pitchforks pointed at the evil haX0rz! </completeandtotalexageration>
The only problem with that idea is that it makes another point for the RIAA to look hypocritical. The record companies KNOW that a good number of P2P downloaders buy CDs from artists they download (I'm not saying everyone does to defend them, so don't flame me for all the actual media pirates). I just think that our lawsuit craven culture supports more excuses to sue little Cindy-Loo-Hoo out of her lunch money.
If the RIAA was really serious about getting rid of all p2p, they wouldn't have ANY part in it. You can't fight to abolish something while getting kickbacks on it (at least not ethically, but that doesn't seem to stop too many people lately).</toungeincheeck>
No offense (honestly) but I think you missed my point. If MS pulls off the marketing ploy (as they've been extremely good at thus far), Jill and Joe Sixpack won't be 'paying for downloads' because they won't know that they were supposed to get $feature['foo'] when they bought the software.
When they don't know what Microsoft originally promised in the early press on Longhorn, they won't know what that weird WinFS update is (if it's not labeled 'important update CSX10045238g'). I'm talking about the average computer user that doesn't really know what a filesystem is, much less that Microsoft has been promising us an OS2-like FS for over a decade now.
They won't think they're paying for downloads because they see pretty graphics, new widgets on the desktop and assume they bought a whole OS. Those updates that MS will start pumping out will just be charity to them. Do you honestly think MS will let on to the general public that a $200 purchase may take a year to download? No. They'll 'sell you a total operating system and give you a bonus of premium updates for the next 3 years' or something like that.
My point is this: with enough marketing (or obscure update titles), the general public won't know that they're paying to download software they already bought. It'll seem like extras being tossed in on top of what they already bought.
There's something you said that explain exactly why people will pay $200 for something they download: perceive
Vista's big marketing is about security (which most users wouldn't care about if they weren't told that they should) and how pretty it is. The fact that it looks so shiney and new is what makes people think it's a bold new product with all new...things that they can't explain, but they're in there! People are mostly going to pay for it because it looks like it's something new and then the 'updates' will give the illusion that they bought a whole OS with benefits. If you want people to pay for downloads, you don't tell them them that. This is where marketing comes in.
For Jill and Joe Sixpack, they won't know the major changes in the codebase and most of them and have never even heard of Longhorn. So they (in most probability) won't even know what they were supposed to get in the first place.
On a serious note, I think this is the reason so many features were taken out of Vista. I've already read about things like the hallowed WinFS to be available as a downloadable patch to Windows 2000 and XP machines as well as Vista.
Something tells me that with the increasing popularity of broadband internet in the home, Microsoft can hold back features and release them as 'special' or 'premium' updates to make up for an otherwise sub-standard OS upon its launch. As long as enough people can reasonably download it, they'll feel like they're getting the royal treatment, but in reality, that patch is a company using faster downloads to make up for thier own inadequacies.
It may be backhanded to deliver a $200 product over the span of a year or so, but at least now, it can finally be delivered.
I have to agree with another reply that this is simply an open invitation taunting every hacker to crack the 360 ASAP. Besides, there's going to be a problem, as with all hackery, that Microsoft, however large their development team is, has to design something that can withstand the combined efforts of at least an entire country of would-be 360 hackers.
The numbers don't look too good for Microsoft on this one.
Not only that, but I frankly find it deplorable that FEMA is treating its website from a business perspective.
In a company, somone can find it most beneficial and cost effective (sometimes, wrongly so) to support the browser that has 80-90% market share (I'm probably off on that stat, but that's not the point). However, when it comes to providing aid to hurricane victims, the government is simply not allowed to only provide to 80-90% of the people.
There should not be any development costs even considered. Make the website work for everyone because EVERYONE needs the help. This is aid, not sales.
I agree to an extent, but my opinion is that if a security firm spots a hole, they should work with the company in question and keep contact on the status of any kind of patch. If a security hole exists, I think the company should be given some time to remedy the situation before information is publicized that could be used by the unvirtuous hackers.
However, if $company['foo'] is not taking adequate measures to fix the problem (which should usually be started|completed ASAP), then the security firm owes it to the public to warn users that $company['foo'] is doing jack shit about a known security flaw and users should take caution until the company gets its act together.
That's my two cents. (p.s. I'm not a security expert, and makes no claims to such)
It isn't much, but considering we've had Bill Gates promising mobile phone software to help kill the iPod, Steve Jobs must be happy as hell to find out that Apple just beat competitors to the first phone marketed for its audio abilities.
This unsettles me really. It looks like Australian courts are taking one-liners out of the Grokster vs. MGM ruling in the US and doctoring to the whims of the record labels. Grokster was shut down because they willingly traded infringing content and unoffically endorsed piracy. Kazzaa isn't the same though. While it got a large amount of its user base from digital pirates, they have had a section of their documentation set aside to explain that they don't endorse infringing copyrights with their software.
If the labels are then, able to turn the ruling against a willingly pro-piracy software to a statement that anyone with illegal content is to be held accountable, then the snowball effect will result as you've pointed out. I hope the courts in AU will realize that allowing people to join a network that has digital pirates on it isn't the fault of the creator when it means that entire servers and ISPs should be shut down as a result.
Then again, there are some people that still work on standards older than dirt. I work for a company whose site still gets hits from people browsing with Netscape 3.0 Gold.
Sometimes, I think one thing that holds Mozilla/Firefox back from wider adoption is the fact that many people are lazy enough to make a site only work in IE, and Firefox would break someone's favorite page as a result. It's the very standards we strive for that leave the masses lagging. I don't know what companies still use SSL2.0 for anything, but I don't doubt the existence of enough to make a developer cringe.
The only benefit I could see is if they combine their membership systems so you don't need one for each store. I could see them doing one of two things when you mention the simultaneous mall pressence:
1. They keep both stores open and maintain their 'identities' on the outside to give the identity of competition to anyone that doesn't know they're both the same company.
2. Or EB and GameStop (under whatever moniker they choose to adopt) could create one monolithic store to compensate for two seperate locations in one area, establishing themselves as some One-Stop-Game-Nirvana.
Either way, I still shop online for most of my games because neither store carries much for PC games.
Slashdot Mirror
But if this is true, we should still call the EU leaders to find out how they beat Microsoft in Europe to glean some useful tactics ^_^
</totalsmartass>
The only problem with that is that the games (theoretically) aren't being prevented from publishing. Like I said, this is in theory, but it's only to keep 'mature' content from being sold to children that have already been agreed upon to be incapable of responsibly handling such media.
So under the Wiktionary definition, yes this would classify as censorship, but so the the movie ratings system, the legal age to buy pornography and even the entire ESRB in its current form.
In response to the complaints that I've been hearing about this subject like "Why not books?" "What about movies?" "Isn't this censorship?" and so on and so forth, I have this to say:
- No, this isn't censorship because content is not being taken out. If the studios have to remove content to reach their audience, they'll find a way around regulations (they always do). Children aren't allowed to buy pornography and yet I hear no massive outcry about that. This is simply trying to keep excessively vulgar and violent games away from very young children.
- Yes, youth violence is on a constant decline as it has been for the past several years, making all these "games raising you children to kill" arguments mostly idiodic.
- Video games can be conceived of as more influential to children than books (I doubt it) and especially movies (easily so) as numerous studies suggest (keyword: suggest) that games are more powerful due to the level of interaction and feedback they require from the user.
- Books are also not being targetted because anybody who looks at social trends can tell that literacy, or at least recreational reading in the US is on the decline. The numbers aren't large enough to get a response.
But finally, games are being the scapegoat because the majority of the voting population in America doesn't understand games. By the time all those kids who were 6 or so when Nintendo first hit the US (people like me) become the major voting demographic, politicians will need to find a new target.
Then again, while I'm not defending Microsoft, here's my take on their 'security':
Yes, plenty, and maybe even most of their promises about being a generally secure system are complete and utter rubbish. However, I'm willing to bet that each of their OSes are more secure than the last one. The problem is that they still leave plenty of holes open when they do things like (to point out the landmark example) weld the web browser to the kernel. I know that most people crack windows because it's easy, but while I may be wrong on this, I think people will continue to spend thier efforts on Windows even if their security was (competely hypothetically) top-notch only because of the bad reputation that precedes them.
I'm not saying that Windows is secure or that it ever will be. However, their security has improved, regardless of how poorly. The last reason on the list to crack Windows (in my opinion) and possibly the strongest reason is that they have a history of poor security. I think script-kiddies will pour ANY amount of effort into destroying any version of Windows just to keep that idea alive.
As much as I love Linux, I really doubt that any one distro (like RedHat for example) would be able to keep their system as secure as it is now if they were the entire world's information security scapegoat as MS is now. (PS, yes I know that MS does, mostly deserve the title they hold)
(I'm not a security expert, nor am I claiming to be, so if you think I'm wrong all I ask is that you not 'correct' me with a torch ^_^)
...piece of proposed (or even passed) anti-video game legislation.
Serioulsy though, like it was mentioned in the article, these politicians are attacking video games because a lot of parents really aren't doing their job, and a lot of parents don't understand video games. By the time that the kids who were young when Nintendo first hit America (people like me) become the normal voting population, politicians will have to target something new because we'll all tell them that it's a load of crap.
In the meantime, I can only hope that enough states hop on the anti-gamer law bandwagon that Jack Thompson can't keep up with all of them. Then in the future, these laws may make it into the halls of www.dumblaws.com, pending we don't become a police state ^_^
Actually, the version of history that I'm aware of is not entirely common (to my awareness anyway) and I don't really find it very charming anyway. It's not like this is some prince valiant story about him coming in to save his game, the creator (when interviewed) basically made it seem like Namco called and said "We know you said no sequels at all, but we want another dollar so we're fucking up your game without you." and the creator trudged back into the office to, as I said, keep it from simply 'sucking less'.
I don't really see much glamour in this one when it feels like the creator was blackmailed into working on something he initially refused and still didn't like the end product despite any rave reviews. And it could be true that even this was a PR hack, but it seems a lot less likely when it makes the company look like the asshole. While the author could have said it for a pity party (I highly doubt he would need it with the large cult surrounding his first Katamari), I'd be leaning away from that theory when the interview I read made me consider NOT buying KD2.
Remember, this is the opinion of the creator. He is the one who thought the 'Christmas Skin' Katamari would suck (and I can't ever see myself buying a game on that). In the creator's (sorry, I can't remember his name) opinion, Namco would do to Katamari what the King of the Cosmos did to the night sky. I have to agree.
(I'm not an expert on this and I'm admitting it, so please be polite with your responses ^_^)
I can see some possible ups to controlling sections of the internet, but as a global tool for the spread of information, the very thing that a lot of people think the internet is designed for, it's mostly downhill.
So far, I haven't found much reason for giving up the root servers other than countries saying "I want one too". Please inform me (politely) if I am mistaken.
I'm not really sure if I can see a board of leaders controlling the internet doing anything to stablize things when they would still have to make policies that EVERYONE aggrees on. In which case, there would still be a great firewall for china, and whatever regulations a government had to ennact because they feel 'their internet' shouldn't be subject to the rules that the proclaimed world could shake hands on.
Besides, that kind of government regulation to override the global ones would require nations to set up offices to handle such legislation that would most likely be filled by aged politicians who think that broadband is a wide bracelet. So far, I haven't seen too many (a few, but still not too many) governments that had any clue about the current technologies they pass laws about.
But on a slightly brighter note, I'm glad to see something that isn't trying to overhype Firefox as the next big security risk.
That has to be worth something.^_^
Honestly though, I agree with your prediction, but I'm still a fan of reading reports like this (as long as they're good ones) because they at least have the capability to inform people (i.e. don't use practice $foo, or this is what caused that problem last week, etc.), and not just incite riots on the message board.
They're just reporting it, we're the ones that go nuts. Yay us!</toungeincheek>
To take a little from your post and the one above it, I think it's a little silly to try to find a definative category for 'hacking'. If nothing else, but for the reason that it all depends on the context in which you use it. (Pardon me for sticking to computer hacking references, but they are the most commonly known.)
- It may be perfectly fine to describe a 'hack' you came up with for getting around a particular web-design problem, and the term may be used quite freely, however...
- Use the word in a public high school and you may end up with some mock interrogation lamp in your face and threat of suspension for not explaining what you meant by photoshop 'hack'.
How I use the word isn't how my parents use it, and that isn't the way politicians (and record labels) use it either. In other words, how you categorize the word may be quite different how you can acceptably use it.
It should probably be noted that the creator of Katamari Damacy didn't want to do a sequel under any circumstances. However, Namco told him that they were considering doing a holiday version of it that basically had a christmas skin on everything. After hearing this, the creator stepped in, not so much to make a great sequel, but simply keep it from sucking less than it would have otherwise.
True, but I'm sure that the people conducting these haphazard fumblings in statistics are working on a way to link
illegal p2p use to hurting sales,
to hurting the local economy,
which in turn hurts the national economy,
which seeks to undermine/overthrow the government,
so that eventually p2p users will be tracked down and charged with treason. So stealing a loaf of bread will get you a fine, but p2p shall get you "the rack"
^_^ Have a nice day from Big Brother!
I'm just dying for the RIAA to catch wind of this and pervert the study that says downloaders are more likely to buy CDs from the artists they download.
RIAA: Well of course P2P users have a lot of CDs from the bands they download...because they stole the CDs!
And then riots will brake out with all the angry labels brandishing pitchforks pointed at the evil haX0rz!
</completeandtotalexageration>
The only problem with that idea is that it makes another point for the RIAA to look hypocritical. The record companies KNOW that a good number of P2P downloaders buy CDs from artists they download (I'm not saying everyone does to defend them, so don't flame me for all the actual media pirates). I just think that our lawsuit craven culture supports more excuses to sue little Cindy-Loo-Hoo out of her lunch money.
If the RIAA was really serious about getting rid of all p2p, they wouldn't have ANY part in it. You can't fight to abolish something while getting kickbacks on it (at least not ethically, but that doesn't seem to stop too many people lately).</toungeincheeck>
No offense (honestly) but I think you missed my point. If MS pulls off the marketing ploy (as they've been extremely good at thus far), Jill and Joe Sixpack won't be 'paying for downloads' because they won't know that they were supposed to get $feature['foo'] when they bought the software.
When they don't know what Microsoft originally promised in the early press on Longhorn, they won't know what that weird WinFS update is (if it's not labeled 'important update CSX10045238g'). I'm talking about the average computer user that doesn't really know what a filesystem is, much less that Microsoft has been promising us an OS2-like FS for over a decade now.
They won't think they're paying for downloads because they see pretty graphics, new widgets on the desktop and assume they bought a whole OS. Those updates that MS will start pumping out will just be charity to them. Do you honestly think MS will let on to the general public that a $200 purchase may take a year to download? No. They'll 'sell you a total operating system and give you a bonus of premium updates for the next 3 years' or something like that.
My point is this: with enough marketing (or obscure update titles), the general public won't know that they're paying to download software they already bought. It'll seem like extras being tossed in on top of what they already bought.
There's something you said that explain exactly why people will pay $200 for something they download: perceive
Vista's big marketing is about security (which most users wouldn't care about if they weren't told that they should) and how pretty it is. The fact that it looks so shiney and new is what makes people think it's a bold new product with all new...things that they can't explain, but they're in there! People are mostly going to pay for it because it looks like it's something new and then the 'updates' will give the illusion that they bought a whole OS with benefits. If you want people to pay for downloads, you don't tell them them that. This is where marketing comes in.
For Jill and Joe Sixpack, they won't know the major changes in the codebase and most of them and have never even heard of Longhorn. So they (in most probability) won't even know what they were supposed to get in the first place.
On a serious note, I think this is the reason so many features were taken out of Vista. I've already read about things like the hallowed WinFS to be available as a downloadable patch to Windows 2000 and XP machines as well as Vista.
Something tells me that with the increasing popularity of broadband internet in the home, Microsoft can hold back features and release them as 'special' or 'premium' updates to make up for an otherwise sub-standard OS upon its launch. As long as enough people can reasonably download it, they'll feel like they're getting the royal treatment, but in reality, that patch is a company using faster downloads to make up for thier own inadequacies.
It may be backhanded to deliver a $200 product over the span of a year or so, but at least now, it can finally be delivered.
That's just my thoughts, though.
Personally, I'd prefer an asteroid the size of an industrial campus headed for a certain location in Redmond...
I have to agree with another reply that this is simply an open invitation taunting every hacker to crack the 360 ASAP. Besides, there's going to be a problem, as with all hackery, that Microsoft, however large their development team is, has to design something that can withstand the combined efforts of at least an entire country of would-be 360 hackers.
The numbers don't look too good for Microsoft on this one.
Not only that, but I frankly find it deplorable that FEMA is treating its website from a business perspective.
In a company, somone can find it most beneficial and cost effective (sometimes, wrongly so) to support the browser that has 80-90% market share (I'm probably off on that stat, but that's not the point). However, when it comes to providing aid to hurricane victims, the government is simply not allowed to only provide to 80-90% of the people.
There should not be any development costs even considered. Make the website work for everyone because EVERYONE needs the help. This is aid, not sales.
I agree to an extent, but my opinion is that if a security firm spots a hole, they should work with the company in question and keep contact on the status of any kind of patch. If a security hole exists, I think the company should be given some time to remedy the situation before information is publicized that could be used by the unvirtuous hackers.
However, if $company['foo'] is not taking adequate measures to fix the problem (which should usually be started|completed ASAP), then the security firm owes it to the public to warn users that $company['foo'] is doing jack shit about a known security flaw and users should take caution until the company gets its act together.
That's my two cents.
(p.s. I'm not a security expert, and makes no claims to such)
It isn't much, but considering we've had Bill Gates promising mobile phone software to help kill the iPod, Steve Jobs must be happy as hell to find out that Apple just beat competitors to the first phone marketed for its audio abilities.
This unsettles me really. It looks like Australian courts are taking one-liners out of the Grokster vs. MGM ruling in the US and doctoring to the whims of the record labels. Grokster was shut down because they willingly traded infringing content and unoffically endorsed piracy. Kazzaa isn't the same though. While it got a large amount of its user base from digital pirates, they have had a section of their documentation set aside to explain that they don't endorse infringing copyrights with their software.
If the labels are then, able to turn the ruling against a willingly pro-piracy software to a statement that anyone with illegal content is to be held accountable, then the snowball effect will result as you've pointed out. I hope the courts in AU will realize that allowing people to join a network that has digital pirates on it isn't the fault of the creator when it means that entire servers and ISPs should be shut down as a result.
Then again, there are some people that still work on standards older than dirt. I work for a company whose site still gets hits from people browsing with Netscape 3.0 Gold.
Sometimes, I think one thing that holds Mozilla/Firefox back from wider adoption is the fact that many people are lazy enough to make a site only work in IE, and Firefox would break someone's favorite page as a result. It's the very standards we strive for that leave the masses lagging. I don't know what companies still use SSL2.0 for anything, but I don't doubt the existence of enough to make a developer cringe.
The only benefit I could see is if they combine their membership systems so you don't need one for each store. I could see them doing one of two things when you mention the simultaneous mall pressence:
1. They keep both stores open and maintain their 'identities' on the outside to give the identity of competition to anyone that doesn't know they're both the same company.
2. Or EB and GameStop (under whatever moniker they choose to adopt) could create one monolithic store to compensate for two seperate locations in one area, establishing themselves as some One-Stop-Game-Nirvana.
Either way, I still shop online for most of my games because neither store carries much for PC games.