Your rant fails to account for a third group - those who have no opinion whatsoever, not even your vitriolic rage, because DirecTV doesn't exist where they are.
Should be free? Because SMSCs cost nothing to implement and run, amirite? And the storage for the text messages is free amirite? Definitely the backhaul getting the text messages from point A to point B for transmission is free.
Text messages aren't free just because you say so. There's a very real cost associated, and one that someone has to pay for (like, I don't know, the customer). Whether the text message costs too much, well that's a different story. Considering I can flick 5000 text messages for about $10 on my plan, I don't see that there's a huge problem. That's around 0.25c (that's a quarter of a cent, not 25 Verizon cents) per message. It could sure be cheaper, but it's a decent enough value proposition that I really don't give a crap. Besides, I can just call people if I have something to say that'll take more than 160 characters, or email them.
I suggest that before making such statements as "it costs nothing for the company to append that extra 160 character text", you actually go talk to an engineer at a cell company (not a PR person) and ask them what equipment is involved in the passage of a text message, and how much it costs to obtain and run. I can guarantee the answer is "a shitload".
Google isn't "good". Google is a corporation. Ultimately, it exists solely as a way to monetise stuff (like all your personal information).
Google doesn't care about "fighting the good fight". Google cares only about money.
Google isn't going to "block Italy". At best, Google will make a few technical modifications or relocate some servers so that this all doesn't apply. They'll do whatever costs the least, or gains them the most money. Regardless of whether it's "good" or "bad".
No, no it shouldn't. The facts are, Google gets copyrighted content uploaded. Studios point out the content. Google removes the content, and flags the signature so it cannot be uploaded again. Studio is slightly annoyed, but can do nothing - studios that file lawsuits are pointed to the content protection processes in place and told to bugger off. Hence, the resolution is what's already happening.
The solution should absolutely not be "everyone's free to upload copyrighted content". I don't subscribe to the ridiculous manifesto of the "Pirate Party".
A better solution, of course, would be if the studios could find some way of approaching it where everyone wins. Like letting "Youtube quality" clips of TV shows and/or movies be uploaded and charging a nominal fee for HD. In fact I do believe Google is already working to make something like that possible.
What usually happens is that the pirate user (who are about as technically proficient as a brick wall) simply ride off the back of the more academic users who tend to hack the device for less dubious reasons.
Also, since when has the eula been on the outside of the WoW box, how does one read it before purchasing?
Pretty sure if I return the box opened and say 'I did not like the eula' the staff would laugh at me when I want a refund.
Well, they DO tell you on the box that use is subject to the End User License Agreement, and tell you that you can read it on their website - which you can do.
What I run on my machine is my machine, no matter what it connects to. Their service is their service and they are free to ban me etc etc, but what I run on my machine is what I run.
Right, so if I walk into your house wearing shoes with dog droppings on the bottom, and tell you "I am free to wear whatever I want on my feet regardless of whether it's your house", you'll just say "oh, it's OK. What you wear on your feet is what you wear"? No. Same principle applies. They tell you "you don't use our service if you don't like that you can't run whatever software you want in connection with our service", you either don't run the software they don't like, or don't use their service. You don't get to unilaterally decide which clauses of the terms of service you want to follow.
If you had your way everyone would still be using ma bell phones because nothing but their gear could attach to their network. Do you think people should have the right to choose their own end equipment? (or in this case software)
I don't recall when Blizzard was given a government granted monopoly on all online gaming. Perhaps your analogy is a little flawed?
Buying boxed software then after the purchase seeing 'by the way, this is a license, but you can't get replacement media and you have to buy another license if you lose the disc' is a sham.
* A picket line outside a business does not affect every other business on the street (a DDoS does affect every other server on the network endpoint. * A picket line outside a business does not completely block access to the business (a DDoS does completely block access to the server) * A picket line outside a business does not cost money beyond that of lost business (a DDoS incurs massive bandwidth, infrastructure, and support cost in addition to that of the lost business) * A picket line that gets out of hand will be promptly cleaned up by law enforcement (a DDoS cannot be cleaned up by law enforcement)
Hence, a DDoS is nothing like a picket line. It's more analogous to a drive by shooting of a business. Ridiculous analogy? So's yours.
is Switzerland evil for jailing Julian on what are suspiciously convenient charges?
Being innocent until proven guilty does not necessitate not being arrested when under suspicion of a crime, whether "suspiciously convenient" or not. I'd be more concerned if they did not arrest him after he was accused and charged.
Hey, at least he was charged, unlike the fellow that provided him the cables.
You do know the server protocol has been reverse engineered and people have made their own, sure it might not be bug for bug perfect but it would be more than enough to test with. Safest option to test the software too.
Said reverse engineering violated the original license too. But I won't address that right now as it's a very big debate that's still going on.
First you need to establish there actually is a contract (eula's are shaky ground). Second, turtuous interference would require the developers themselves to individually tell people 'hey, use this on the official wow servers' after it has been established there is a contract.
The mere existence of a tool which can cause harm does not make people do it.
An EULA is not on shaky ground if offered for perusal prior to purchase actually, and there has not yet been an instance of a court deeming an EULA "shaky ground" even if it weren't - quit making stuff up. And even if it were, this is about a violation of the Terms of Service for using the service, something which has always held to be a binding legal contract. And the court does have the ability to decide the intent of the developer. Anyway, this line in the FAQ for Glider may help:
Q: Can I run Glider on a private or emulated server? A: Running Glider on non-Blizzard servers is unsupported, as the client on such servers is generally confused, old, or both. We strongly recommend running Glider on official, paid servers. Come on, it's a great game, there's no reason to try to job Blizzard out of their monthly fee.
"You can't write software I don't like because you are using a service I provide" is a slippery slope.
You're phrasing it wrong. That's actually "You can't write software I don't like on a service I provide you." And that's not a slippery slope. Otherwise, you better use that same line when someone walks into your house with dogshit on their boots and tracks it on your carpet.
What if google suddenly told people (not that they would) that everyone who browses google must use chrome and anyone found bypassing this will have their ip range permanently banned. Would you still be in support of it?
Actually, yes, I would. I'd stop using Google, but that's my exclusive remedy to deal with Google offering me services on terms I don't like. I don't get to unilaterally tell then "no, you're giving me services on these terms".
As a better analogy, the pidgin IM client can connect to various chat networks, most of which have a clause somewhere to only use the official client. Since it is their service by you they have the rights to which things can connect and so no IM clients should exist except official ones and we should all have one client for each network.
AOL is the only one with a clause like that. The others just have clauses telling you not to expect the full experience (missing features, etc). Besides, it is their right to say that. Their service, their turf, their rules.
I hope how you see this can get ridiculous.
No, I can't. I can only see how the arguments against it are ridiculous.
Hating people who bot is not a justification to say 'you can not run whatever the hell you want on your own computer'
They're not saying that. They're saying "you can not run whatever the hell you want on connection with our services". If MDY weren't so fucking moronic as to recommend that people use the bot on the official service, then they could have argued that the intent was for people to run it connected only to emulated servers. But they were.
I just read through that document linked (good thing Google Translate knows Russian, because I sure don't).
Nowhere in there does it even imply that the government will be required to contribute anything back. Since it's possible that Google Translate is useless, please do tell exactly what specific part in there requires contributing back? English and Russian quotation please.
But that's not true either. The person writing the software is writing software for the sole purpose of allowing people to violate a contract- there's a law against that (I see "Tortuous Interference" bandied around a lot). And to create the software, they have to violate the contract themselves to test it.
Hence, they are even more of a valid target than the users themselves. The DMCA may not be the law to use, but they are acting well within legal and moral boundaries to pursue the program author.
Your model still relies on ignoring a critical factor - like all economic models: free will. If a consumer can avoid paying a reasonable amount, they will. In real life, people don't consume a product and then say "you know what, I think I'd like to pay more for this!" - they pay as little as possible. Since there's no way to remove the fixed costs that all producers and distributors must incur, the inevitable result is a market with very few producers, and very few of them with the resources to produce quality product. The patron model doesn't work in the modern world, where people can delude themselves into believing it's a "victimless crime" to not contribute to the production of a good, virtual or not.
The private property is Blizzard's server infrastructure, not the World of Warcraft client. I don't dispute your right to fiddle with your own software, I dispute your right to fiddle with software that connects to a giant worldwide network owned by a private entity who grants you access to that network on a specific set of terms including "you will not fiddle with the software that connects to this network".
It's not really infinite supply though. If people stop paying decent amounts for product just because "there's infinite supply", the fixed costs of that producer will bankrupt them. The flow on effect is that future entrepreneurs will see that as a possible outcome if they were to try it themselves, and therefore wont bother - so we in fact end up with less supply. It's not pure economic theory, but to be honest pure economic theory fails to take into account the one major variable - free will. Economists should be required to take psychology degrees as well.
Actually, that's a rather interesting point you and the GP raise. I can see where he's coming from and I can see where you're coming from. You're arguing that as running the client isn't copyright violation, then you can't argue a DMCA violation. The GP seems to be arguing that as the running of a bot is in violation of the Terms of Service, therefore invalidating your right to run the game, it technically does violate the DMCA to circumvent Warden as the Warden component is designed to prevent the usage of the software in situations where your right to run the software is invalidated (e.g. where you're running a bot which violates the terms of service and EULA) - which technically makes it an effective copy-protection mechanism. Ergo, the DMCA does apply.
I'd like to see the court's reasoning on this in detail, and would be interested in seeing some analysis by actual lawyers - it seems like it could be a very interesting discussion.
Except they're not trying to trump a right. They're trying to trump someone developing software to interact with Blizzard's private property in a manner which is completely unintended, and in fact contrary to the rules upon which Blizzard grants you access to their property. The only rights being trampled are those of Blizzard and its component people thereof.
Yes, because it's Apple's hardware. Why should Microsoft support you running Mozilla Firefox on RedHat Linux? They're just looking out for their customers, although in this case it is slightly unexpected.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it really isn't. It's absolutely identical.
As does the E75.
(And standard it is - I also charge my Amazon Kindle off the Nokia charger, and vice-versa).
Your rant fails to account for a third group - those who have no opinion whatsoever, not even your vitriolic rage, because DirecTV doesn't exist where they are.
Should be free? Because SMSCs cost nothing to implement and run, amirite? And the storage for the text messages is free amirite? Definitely the backhaul getting the text messages from point A to point B for transmission is free.
Text messages aren't free just because you say so. There's a very real cost associated, and one that someone has to pay for (like, I don't know, the customer). Whether the text message costs too much, well that's a different story. Considering I can flick 5000 text messages for about $10 on my plan, I don't see that there's a huge problem. That's around 0.25c (that's a quarter of a cent, not 25 Verizon cents) per message. It could sure be cheaper, but it's a decent enough value proposition that I really don't give a crap. Besides, I can just call people if I have something to say that'll take more than 160 characters, or email them.
I suggest that before making such statements as "it costs nothing for the company to append that extra 160 character text", you actually go talk to an engineer at a cell company (not a PR person) and ask them what equipment is involved in the passage of a text message, and how much it costs to obtain and run. I can guarantee the answer is "a shitload".
I see this suggested a lot, but let's be serious.
Google isn't "good". Google is a corporation. Ultimately, it exists solely as a way to monetise stuff (like all your personal information).
Google doesn't care about "fighting the good fight". Google cares only about money.
Google isn't going to "block Italy". At best, Google will make a few technical modifications or relocate some servers so that this all doesn't apply. They'll do whatever costs the least, or gains them the most money. Regardless of whether it's "good" or "bad".
No, no it shouldn't. The facts are, Google gets copyrighted content uploaded. Studios point out the content. Google removes the content, and flags the signature so it cannot be uploaded again. Studio is slightly annoyed, but can do nothing - studios that file lawsuits are pointed to the content protection processes in place and told to bugger off. Hence, the resolution is what's already happening.
The solution should absolutely not be "everyone's free to upload copyrighted content". I don't subscribe to the ridiculous manifesto of the "Pirate Party".
A better solution, of course, would be if the studios could find some way of approaching it where everyone wins. Like letting "Youtube quality" clips of TV shows and/or movies be uploaded and charging a nominal fee for HD. In fact I do believe Google is already working to make something like that possible.
What usually happens is that the pirate user (who are about as technically proficient as a brick wall) simply ride off the back of the more academic users who tend to hack the device for less dubious reasons.
Plaid.
Also, since when has the eula been on the outside of the WoW box, how does one read it before purchasing?
Pretty sure if I return the box opened and say 'I did not like the eula' the staff would laugh at me when I want a refund.
Well, they DO tell you on the box that use is subject to the End User License Agreement, and tell you that you can read it on their website - which you can do.
What I run on my machine is my machine, no matter what it connects to. Their service is their service and they are free to ban me etc etc, but what I run on my machine is what I run.
Right, so if I walk into your house wearing shoes with dog droppings on the bottom, and tell you "I am free to wear whatever I want on my feet regardless of whether it's your house", you'll just say "oh, it's OK. What you wear on your feet is what you wear"? No. Same principle applies. They tell you "you don't use our service if you don't like that you can't run whatever software you want in connection with our service", you either don't run the software they don't like, or don't use their service. You don't get to unilaterally decide which clauses of the terms of service you want to follow.
If you had your way everyone would still be using ma bell phones because nothing but their gear could attach to their network. Do you think people should have the right to choose their own end equipment? (or in this case software)
I don't recall when Blizzard was given a government granted monopoly on all online gaming. Perhaps your analogy is a little flawed?
Buying boxed software then after the purchase seeing 'by the way, this is a license, but you can't get replacement media and you have to buy another license if you lose the disc' is a sham.
Ah, the singular point we agree on.
No, it really isn't comparable to a picket line.
* A picket line outside a business does not affect every other business on the street (a DDoS does affect every other server on the network endpoint.
* A picket line outside a business does not completely block access to the business (a DDoS does completely block access to the server)
* A picket line outside a business does not cost money beyond that of lost business (a DDoS incurs massive bandwidth, infrastructure, and support cost in addition to that of the lost business)
* A picket line that gets out of hand will be promptly cleaned up by law enforcement (a DDoS cannot be cleaned up by law enforcement)
Hence, a DDoS is nothing like a picket line. It's more analogous to a drive by shooting of a business. Ridiculous analogy? So's yours.
is Switzerland evil for jailing Julian on what are suspiciously convenient charges?
Being innocent until proven guilty does not necessitate not being arrested when under suspicion of a crime, whether "suspiciously convenient" or not. I'd be more concerned if they did not arrest him after he was accused and charged.
Hey, at least he was charged, unlike the fellow that provided him the cables.
Funnily enough, if you give them money that checkbox actually disappears.
You do know the server protocol has been reverse engineered and people have made their own, sure it might not be bug for bug perfect but it would be more than enough to test with. Safest option to test the software too.
Said reverse engineering violated the original license too. But I won't address that right now as it's a very big debate that's still going on.
First you need to establish there actually is a contract (eula's are shaky ground). Second, turtuous interference would require the developers themselves to individually tell people 'hey, use this on the official wow servers' after it has been established there is a contract.
The mere existence of a tool which can cause harm does not make people do it.
An EULA is not on shaky ground if offered for perusal prior to purchase actually, and there has not yet been an instance of a court deeming an EULA "shaky ground" even if it weren't - quit making stuff up. And even if it were, this is about a violation of the Terms of Service for using the service, something which has always held to be a binding legal contract. And the court does have the ability to decide the intent of the developer. Anyway, this line in the FAQ for Glider may help:
"You can't write software I don't like because you are using a service I provide" is a slippery slope.
You're phrasing it wrong. That's actually "You can't write software I don't like on a service I provide you." And that's not a slippery slope. Otherwise, you better use that same line when someone walks into your house with dogshit on their boots and tracks it on your carpet.
What if google suddenly told people (not that they would) that everyone who browses google must use chrome and anyone found bypassing this will have their ip range permanently banned. Would you still be in support of it?
Actually, yes, I would. I'd stop using Google, but that's my exclusive remedy to deal with Google offering me services on terms I don't like. I don't get to unilaterally tell then "no, you're giving me services on these terms".
As a better analogy, the pidgin IM client can connect to various chat networks, most of which have a clause somewhere to only use the official client. Since it is their service by you they have the rights to which things can connect and so no IM clients should exist except official ones and we should all have one client for each network.
AOL is the only one with a clause like that. The others just have clauses telling you not to expect the full experience (missing features, etc). Besides, it is their right to say that. Their service, their turf, their rules.
I hope how you see this can get ridiculous.
No, I can't. I can only see how the arguments against it are ridiculous.
Hating people who bot is not a justification to say 'you can not run whatever the hell you want on your own computer'
They're not saying that. They're saying "you can not run whatever the hell you want on connection with our services". If MDY weren't so fucking moronic as to recommend that people use the bot on the official service, then they could have argued that the intent was for people to run it connected only to emulated servers. But they were.
I just read through that document linked (good thing Google Translate knows Russian, because I sure don't).
Nowhere in there does it even imply that the government will be required to contribute anything back. Since it's possible that Google Translate is useless, please do tell exactly what specific part in there requires contributing back? English and Russian quotation please.
But that's not true either. The person writing the software is writing software for the sole purpose of allowing people to violate a contract- there's a law against that (I see "Tortuous Interference" bandied around a lot). And to create the software, they have to violate the contract themselves to test it.
Hence, they are even more of a valid target than the users themselves. The DMCA may not be the law to use, but they are acting well within legal and moral boundaries to pursue the program author.
MS Office has a feature to nuke the metadata with a single click.
Go figure.
Your model still relies on ignoring a critical factor - like all economic models: free will. If a consumer can avoid paying a reasonable amount, they will. In real life, people don't consume a product and then say "you know what, I think I'd like to pay more for this!" - they pay as little as possible. Since there's no way to remove the fixed costs that all producers and distributors must incur, the inevitable result is a market with very few producers, and very few of them with the resources to produce quality product. The patron model doesn't work in the modern world, where people can delude themselves into believing it's a "victimless crime" to not contribute to the production of a good, virtual or not.
The private property is Blizzard's server infrastructure, not the World of Warcraft client. I don't dispute your right to fiddle with your own software, I dispute your right to fiddle with software that connects to a giant worldwide network owned by a private entity who grants you access to that network on a specific set of terms including "you will not fiddle with the software that connects to this network".
What's ridiculous is that you think that's OK.
It's not really infinite supply though. If people stop paying decent amounts for product just because "there's infinite supply", the fixed costs of that producer will bankrupt them. The flow on effect is that future entrepreneurs will see that as a possible outcome if they were to try it themselves, and therefore wont bother - so we in fact end up with less supply. It's not pure economic theory, but to be honest pure economic theory fails to take into account the one major variable - free will. Economists should be required to take psychology degrees as well.
Actually, that's a rather interesting point you and the GP raise. I can see where he's coming from and I can see where you're coming from. You're arguing that as running the client isn't copyright violation, then you can't argue a DMCA violation. The GP seems to be arguing that as the running of a bot is in violation of the Terms of Service, therefore invalidating your right to run the game, it technically does violate the DMCA to circumvent Warden as the Warden component is designed to prevent the usage of the software in situations where your right to run the software is invalidated (e.g. where you're running a bot which violates the terms of service and EULA) - which technically makes it an effective copy-protection mechanism. Ergo, the DMCA does apply.
I'd like to see the court's reasoning on this in detail, and would be interested in seeing some analysis by actual lawyers - it seems like it could be a very interesting discussion.
Except they're not trying to trump a right. They're trying to trump someone developing software to interact with Blizzard's private property in a manner which is completely unintended, and in fact contrary to the rules upon which Blizzard grants you access to their property. The only rights being trampled are those of Blizzard and its component people thereof.
That's SORBS, not Spamhaus. Fact check much?
No. You're thinking of SORBS (now GFI).
Yes, because it's Apple's hardware. Why should Microsoft support you running Mozilla Firefox on RedHat Linux? They're just looking out for their customers, although in this case it is slightly unexpected.
The amount of data consumed is quite small, you could probably get away with a casual rate on Prepay.