I'm gonna split hairs here and point out that under Russian law, allofmp3 is quite legal (for now) because Russia does NOT require an agreement be executed in advance to be licensed to sell works. Russian law also says that all they do need to do is pay a royalty to a rights management group (for lack of a better name), such as ROMS, who they DO pay, to be held in escrow until the rights holder requests payment. No rights holder has requested this money from ROMS. So you aren't quite correct there, what they have done IS enough.
Also, bear in mind that the site isn't actually targeted at the US (I know, technicality, and of course the INTENT is to get US and other countries to buy there) and so far as I know, US citizens buying your products over the internet does NOT bring you under the jurisdiction of US law. Russian law is the only one that applies to the sale. US law only applies when you receive the file.
Why do you think AllOfMp3 laughs at the US court's judgement in favour of the RIAA to the tune of "Russia" (or, $1,600,000,000,000 US)? Or why it persists in doing exactly what the US court decided is illegal? The RIAA (interchangeably used with "Major Labels" in this case) is only bitching because the songs there are so cheap, so the royalties they are entitled to collect from ROMS is not enough to line their wallets. Which of course is why they wont collect from ROMS - doing so would validate AllOfMP3's position, and destroy their argument.
Are you a complete idiot? So the artists with talent should basically bankrupt themselves and their families putting out music because you think music should be free? Hell no. Music should cost, but it should be reasonably priced. It should not have unreasonable "you can only install this song on 5 players, and you may not reinstall Windows after doing so" restrictions. And most importantly, the majority of the money should go to the artist that created it. I understand record labels taking a cut to pay for production, but that cut should not be 90%, and it should reasonably reflect the cost of producing the music (though I grant that they do need to make some profit off it).
Perhaps what needs to happen here is artists need to get together and found their OWN record label, paid for by artists, run by them, and run FOR them. Then join the RIAA and wreak havoc at stakeholder meetings!
Still, the time requirements are quite high, and even $1000 is a quite high cost for what is an infinitesmal (if even that) perceived benefit. Sure it's high... for shareware perhaps. But if you're selling an antivirus package to Joe Consumer and he gets to choose between your competitor's which is fully certified to run on Windows and your which isn't, guess which he'll choose? I think that's worth far more than $1000.
You're right, and Microsoft agrees. That's why getting a driver or kernel-land certified must be done by Microsoft WinQual Labs, and costs significantly more than $1,000.
I'm going to have to correct myself here. I have once seen it cost this much, however it must have been reduced recently as it now only costs $1,000. And for the "first 1,000 to apply, Microsoft will pay the testing fees" so you get free certification (did that sound like an infomercial?)
Still, the time requirements are quite high, and even $1000 is a quite high cost for what is an infinitesmal (if even that) perceived benefit.
The independent lab (see, no quotation marks) does not want your Source Code, and giving your finished app to MS violates the agreement you have with them. They aren't morons.
You know, I should have known that I'd get this sort of FUD response to that statement. I'm not going to bother arguing, you're firmly convinced that you're right and anyone who thinks Microsoft is NOT the fifth rider of the apocolypse is wrong.
Actually, the integrity and safety of Mono and it's users is guaranteed by the Shared Source Agreement covering the.NET CLI/CLR which essentially says "this is what you can do, and we can't sue you for it. Just don't claim it's yours"
All you're doing is spreading FUD. Of course, what was I expecting here? You might want to read the SSA before ranting off about how you'll be sued for using something MS explicitly licensed you to use.
Under the Shared Source License, they can't do that. Ever read that license? It's the one pertaining to the.NET CLR/CLI Source Code (downloadable for free) that says what you and Microsoft can and cannot do.
See http://www.google.com/a/ It's got some restrictions just essentially it's free web hosting. No. It's beta, and they DON'T have free hosting. You do get to use Google Pages with your domain though (which is simply UNACCEPTABLE).
There is a rudimentary form of package 'management' in Windows: MSI. It just doesn't manage anything: it allows basically to strip the win32 stuff from the installer and just leave the installation data in xml-form with cabinets where data can be extracted from. Much could and should be improved indeed. You could not be more wrong. Windows Installer completely manages MSI-installed applications to ensure they are not damaged (repairs applications if they appear to be broken), provides a single installation/uninstallation method with predictable management for the user (any MSI installed apps appear in Add/Remove Programs without exception).
Also, MSI packages (as that's what they are) can make modifications to configuration of IIS, modify files (like, say, httpd.ini for apache users), change registry entries, create users, edit ACLs, and all sorts of other weird and useful stuff. Best of all, the installer service tracks these changes and rolls them back if the app is uninstalled or install fails.
Not entirely true. It is a security risk in that with both the credit card, and the address printed on most photo ID, you then have enough details for Online transactions. You do not with the card alone, as online merchants for the most part require a correct address (ironically for THEIR own protection)
I don't know. EBGames here in NZ does the same thing. They swipe the card through the EFTPOS terminal (which causes the bank to provide an authorization) and THEN they copy the credit card number, expiry, and CVV2 code into their computer systems. One time I asked them not to and they said it's "required for reconciliation".
Credit card companies are branches of banks (who else has money to lend?).
Depends what you mean by "credit card company". Mastercard & Visa are not banks, they just rent out their name to banks. It's the bank that issues the cards. Mastercard & Visa set some standards in their contracts with the the banks. Not entirely true. Visa is in fact a conglomerate of 11,000ish banks, founded by Bank of America.
As I understand it, Glider does nasty stuff that prevents the Warden client from seeing it or being able to act upon it. Remember, the Warden is limited in what it can do (it runs in userland, remember? As long as it is not running at Kernel level, other programs are capable of masking themselves). I don't know offhand what that is, but I'll take a look later on when I get home unless someone else gets there first.
Actually, you don't have to pay for Battlenet Diablo/Diablo II games. I'm pretty sure that WoW is the first Blizzard game to require a monthly payment. The whole bnetd thing was completely about control, not money. Actually, their core argument was that BnetD had no valid way of confirming that the CD key affiliated with any given installation of the game was valid, and not pirated. This was what was upheld, as technically the BnetD team were providing a means of circumventing the copy protection to play online.
The Game Engine has NOTHING at all to do with the servers. The Game Engine encompasses the local software. The Server Software is just that, the Server Software.
The reason your "severe problem" has not been mentioned is that it is NOT an Engine bug. That's why it hasn't been mentioned.
You can't by any stretch of the term call ANY of those "Engine Bugs" like the GP was talking about. Those are server side errors and mistakes. I agree that these are problems, but replying with them in answer to someone saying the engine is second to none is like replying with the price of fish to a query as to when the next bus will arrive.
This is definitely right. More importantly, will this intercept (and reply with their "special IP" to) requests for records of type MX? How about SRV? Or TXT? If it DOES, we're looking at serious problems with mail servers thinking sites exist but with SMTP down (and therefore causing Transient, "will retry later" errors, rather than permanent, "domain doesn't exist, nope, not trying again" errors)
Well, THIS is a take I never thought I'd see on this site... by that realisation, you are admitting that End User License Agreements are also valid, enforcable, contracts.
From a theoretical perspective, you are referring to Quasars. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, any scientists present) is that you would NOT want to be near one of these either, as they do the opposite of black holes in that they spew energy (fatal radiation it is). Theoretically. I don't recall if they've proved anything regarding quasars past their existence.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm gonna split hairs here and point out that under Russian law, allofmp3 is quite legal (for now) because Russia does NOT require an agreement be executed in advance to be licensed to sell works. Russian law also says that all they do need to do is pay a royalty to a rights management group (for lack of a better name), such as ROMS, who they DO pay, to be held in escrow until the rights holder requests payment. No rights holder has requested this money from ROMS. So you aren't quite correct there, what they have done IS enough.
Also, bear in mind that the site isn't actually targeted at the US (I know, technicality, and of course the INTENT is to get US and other countries to buy there) and so far as I know, US citizens buying your products over the internet does NOT bring you under the jurisdiction of US law. Russian law is the only one that applies to the sale. US law only applies when you receive the file.
Why do you think AllOfMp3 laughs at the US court's judgement in favour of the RIAA to the tune of "Russia" (or, $1,600,000,000,000 US)? Or why it persists in doing exactly what the US court decided is illegal? The RIAA (interchangeably used with "Major Labels" in this case) is only bitching because the songs there are so cheap, so the royalties they are entitled to collect from ROMS is not enough to line their wallets. Which of course is why they wont collect from ROMS - doing so would validate AllOfMP3's position, and destroy their argument.
Are you a complete idiot? So the artists with talent should basically bankrupt themselves and their families putting out music because you think music should be free? Hell no. Music should cost, but it should be reasonably priced. It should not have unreasonable "you can only install this song on 5 players, and you may not reinstall Windows after doing so" restrictions. And most importantly, the majority of the money should go to the artist that created it. I understand record labels taking a cut to pay for production, but that cut should not be 90%, and it should reasonably reflect the cost of producing the music (though I grant that they do need to make some profit off it).
Perhaps what needs to happen here is artists need to get together and found their OWN record label, paid for by artists, run by them, and run FOR them. Then join the RIAA and wreak havoc at stakeholder meetings!
They usually don't parse anything. Usually, they are printer drivers which just print off whatever the browser hands them.
You're right, and Microsoft agrees. That's why getting a driver or kernel-land certified must be done by Microsoft WinQual Labs, and costs significantly more than $1,000.
Actually, Office 2007 has a ONE MILLION row/column limitation. Complete waste of time, I'm sure. But, meh.
I'm going to have to correct myself here. I have once seen it cost this much, however it must have been reduced recently as it now only costs $1,000. And for the "first 1,000 to apply, Microsoft will pay the testing fees" so you get free certification (did that sound like an infomercial?)
Still, the time requirements are quite high, and even $1000 is a quite high cost for what is an infinitesmal (if even that) perceived benefit.
The independent lab (see, no quotation marks) does not want your Source Code, and giving your finished app to MS violates the agreement you have with them. They aren't morons.
Oh, and it also costs $20,000 or so to do. Something not all companies really want to do for dubious (if any) benefit.
You know, I should have known that I'd get this sort of FUD response to that statement. I'm not going to bother arguing, you're firmly convinced that you're right and anyone who thinks Microsoft is NOT the fifth rider of the apocolypse is wrong.
Actually, the integrity and safety of Mono and it's users is guaranteed by the Shared Source Agreement covering the .NET CLI/CLR which essentially says "this is what you can do, and we can't sue you for it. Just don't claim it's yours"
All you're doing is spreading FUD. Of course, what was I expecting here? You might want to read the SSA before ranting off about how you'll be sued for using something MS explicitly licensed you to use.
Under the Shared Source License, they can't do that. Ever read that license? It's the one pertaining to the .NET CLR/CLI Source Code (downloadable for free) that says what you and Microsoft can and cannot do.
Also, MSI packages (as that's what they are) can make modifications to configuration of IIS, modify files (like, say, httpd.ini for apache users), change registry entries, create users, edit ACLs, and all sorts of other weird and useful stuff. Best of all, the installer service tracks these changes and rolls them back if the app is uninstalled or install fails.
Not entirely true. It is a security risk in that with both the credit card, and the address printed on most photo ID, you then have enough details for Online transactions. You do not with the card alone, as online merchants for the most part require a correct address (ironically for THEIR own protection)
I don't know. EBGames here in NZ does the same thing. They swipe the card through the EFTPOS terminal (which causes the bank to provide an authorization) and THEN they copy the credit card number, expiry, and CVV2 code into their computer systems. One time I asked them not to and they said it's "required for reconciliation".
Depends what you mean by "credit card company". Mastercard & Visa are not banks, they just rent out their name to banks. It's the bank that issues the cards. Mastercard & Visa set some standards in their contracts with the the banks.
Not entirely true. Visa is in fact a conglomerate of 11,000ish banks, founded by Bank of America.
As I understand it, Glider does nasty stuff that prevents the Warden client from seeing it or being able to act upon it. Remember, the Warden is limited in what it can do (it runs in userland, remember? As long as it is not running at Kernel level, other programs are capable of masking themselves). I don't know offhand what that is, but I'll take a look later on when I get home unless someone else gets there first.
Actually, their core argument was that BnetD had no valid way of confirming that the CD key affiliated with any given installation of the game was valid, and not pirated. This was what was upheld, as technically the BnetD team were providing a means of circumventing the copy protection to play online.
Because that would royally suck. That's just ASKING for people to exploit/hack the game.
I guess we'll get to say this a lot:
The Game Engine has NOTHING at all to do with the servers. The Game Engine encompasses the local software. The Server Software is just that, the Server Software.
The reason your "severe problem" has not been mentioned is that it is NOT an Engine bug. That's why it hasn't been mentioned.
You can't by any stretch of the term call ANY of those "Engine Bugs" like the GP was talking about. Those are server side errors and mistakes. I agree that these are problems, but replying with them in answer to someone saying the engine is second to none is like replying with the price of fish to a query as to when the next bus will arrive.
This is definitely right. More importantly, will this intercept (and reply with their "special IP" to) requests for records of type MX? How about SRV? Or TXT? If it DOES, we're looking at serious problems with mail servers thinking sites exist but with SMTP down (and therefore causing Transient, "will retry later" errors, rather than permanent, "domain doesn't exist, nope, not trying again" errors)
Well, THIS is a take I never thought I'd see on this site... by that realisation, you are admitting that End User License Agreements are also valid, enforcable, contracts.
From a theoretical perspective, you are referring to Quasars. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, any scientists present) is that you would NOT want to be near one of these either, as they do the opposite of black holes in that they spew energy (fatal radiation it is). Theoretically. I don't recall if they've proved anything regarding quasars past their existence.
World Wide Web Consortium anyone? This is about where THEY get their money from too.