The real problem is the process. Look when we get 12 people together, a judge, a prosecutor and a defense lawyer we still make mistakes in prosecuting people.
This seems to be fast justice, whatever system is in place is going to screw up much more that a jury trial, it's unworkable - we (and France) have laws and a justice system.... use them.
This sounds more like privatised fast-justice, who the hell will decide who "Hadopi" will ban, what will the legal process be?
What about when I lose my internet access for accessing wikileaks, or because I downloaded a Tom Cruise Scientology video? What happens when Geller causes thousands to lose their access cos they downloaded a James Randi debunking video?
And anyway, it's all fucking pointless, if you're prepared to "waste" half you bandwidth then the whole illegal peer-to-peer scene can just move to a system like tor where downloaders don't know who the uploaders are and vice-verca. Sure it wastes (at least) half the networks bandwidth but if authorities force p2p there, then there it will go.
The days of being able to copy a friend's DVD are pretty much over. I know no one who uses CloneCD/Alcohol/Blindwrite to copy someone else's games.
The downloadable crack was available in the same timescale as any NOCD crack, so it made absolutely no difference to those who download games.
So to prevent something that rarely happens any more (copying orginal DVDs) they have gone with a game that doesn't need a DVD in the drive to play. Now they have a real problem with people handing the original out to friends so they have to limit the number of installs.
So what have they done here... well removed the 2nd hand market at a stroke. This game is in effect a rental now, for those law abiding customers that bought it.
Worse that that at some date in the future when EA's activation servers are long gone you've got a coaster unless you download the crack.
This is the BBC not youtube it's a little more complicated that you think.
UK TV license payers have paid in full for BBC content *and* delivery of those programs ie currently BBC pay fully to get the program into your house (with money that the UK license payer has given them).
So the ISPs request is not completely bogus, I think they're wrong but you can see where they're coming from - their customers can rightly argue that they shouldn't have to pay anything more (higher ISP charges) to receive content they've already paid for *fully* to the BBC.
Could someone explain *how* it identifies torrent users?
Are you meant to dual interface it and run all the universities net traffic through it? If you connect it to a switch (as 99.999% of colleges have) then you're not going to be able to sniff all traffic, just ethernet addrsses the switch has seen on your port. Are MPAA really suggesting that you run all your traffic through their box or are they asking you to to turn on packet mirroring on the switch for the port you've connected their piece of crap to?
SOLUTION:
When it comes to trial hand the judge the GH controller and start the song on expert and see how like the original it sounds!.... CASE DISMISSED
Surely it would be easier to attach one of those new dragonfly-drones to the roof of the Nissan and launch it when parking, saving immensely in the computer processing power required.
>So what? The box says "online activation required". They are under no obligation to waive this requirement at a later date, so why should we trust them on their non-binding word? Why didn't they put that on the box?
And I guess they have an amazing way of updating the DVD with a new version? what do you think?
Fine they might put a patch on the net, but you're left with an install DVD that at some stage in the future will cease to 'install' because the authorisation server will no longer be there.
So to get a working install of Bioshock you'll need your original DVD *and* some downloaded patch - that's bullshit - I want my retail DVD to work forever by itself.
There have been a number of games (Splinter cell C:T and some other rally game) that remained unpirated for a long time after their release due to the SF3 protection used.
Now I haven't seen any sales figures for these games, which surely must be absolutely massive. Why? has anyone seen the figures and do games that have not been pirated sell much more that expected?
Some facts to back up this assertion?
The last report I saw was about 2.4Billion from license fees and about 200Million from overseas sales. That makes the license fee the *opposite* of a small part!
I think in the short term if the content was available online for non-commercial use worldwide (you can't make money from showing it with bloody adverts) that would be fair all round and it would make only a small dent in the international sales.
And I say once *we* (the fee paying public) have paid for it and watched it - give it away!
- why not give it to the rest of the world?
I doubt we'd be out of pocket much and the rest of the world would have Red Dwarf.
If the UK pumped out quality TV to the rest of the world it might help balance some of our less savoury outputs.
and then we see the real issue come out, whether you can map someone else's 'thing' and publish it. Is it just their map protected or any map of their subway.
Slashdot Mirror
So for example the .cola domain, if pepsi gets it and registers .cola and pepsi.cola first then the only way we'll see coca.cola is if pepsi let them?
The real problem is the process. Look when we get 12 people together, a judge, a prosecutor and a defense lawyer we still make mistakes in prosecuting people.
.... use them.
This seems to be fast justice, whatever system is in place is going to screw up much more that a jury trial, it's unworkable - we (and France) have laws and a justice system
This sounds more like privatised fast-justice, who the hell will decide who "Hadopi" will ban, what will the legal process be?
What about when I lose my internet access for accessing wikileaks, or because I downloaded a Tom Cruise Scientology video? What happens when Geller causes thousands to lose their access cos they downloaded a James Randi debunking video?
And anyway, it's all fucking pointless, if you're prepared to "waste" half you bandwidth then the whole illegal peer-to-peer scene can just move to a system like tor where downloaders don't know who the uploaders are and vice-verca. Sure it wastes (at least) half the networks bandwidth but if authorities force p2p there, then there it will go.
What did EA achieve using this?
... well removed the 2nd hand market at a stroke. This game is in effect a rental now, for those law abiding customers that bought it.
The days of being able to copy a friend's DVD are pretty much over. I know no one who uses CloneCD/Alcohol/Blindwrite to copy someone else's games.
The downloadable crack was available in the same timescale as any NOCD crack, so it made absolutely no difference to those who download games.
So to prevent something that rarely happens any more (copying orginal DVDs) they have gone with a game that doesn't need a DVD in the drive to play. Now they have a real problem with people handing the original out to friends so they have to limit the number of installs.
So what have they done here
Worse that that at some date in the future when EA's activation servers are long gone you've got a coaster unless you download the crack.
This is the BBC not youtube it's a little more complicated that you think.
UK TV license payers have paid in full for BBC content *and* delivery of those programs ie currently BBC pay fully to get the program into your house (with money that the UK license payer has given them).
So the ISPs request is not completely bogus, I think they're wrong but you can see where they're coming from - their customers can rightly argue that they shouldn't have to pay anything more (higher ISP charges) to receive content they've already paid for *fully* to the BBC.
They have that list already - it's the subset of all broadband subscribers where the title is "MR".
Could someone explain *how* it identifies torrent users? Are you meant to dual interface it and run all the universities net traffic through it? If you connect it to a switch (as 99.999% of colleges have) then you're not going to be able to sniff all traffic, just ethernet addrsses the switch has seen on your port. Are MPAA really suggesting that you run all your traffic through their box or are they asking you to to turn on packet mirroring on the switch for the port you've connected their piece of crap to?
SOLUTION: When it comes to trial hand the judge the GH controller and start the song on expert and see how like the original it sounds! .... CASE DISMISSED
Surely it would be easier to attach one of those new dragonfly-drones to the roof of the Nissan and launch it when parking, saving immensely in the computer processing power required.
The Sweeney is not a BBC production! It was made by Thames Television
>So what? The box says "online activation required". They are under no obligation to waive this requirement at a later date, so why should we trust them on their non-binding word? Why didn't they put that on the box? And I guess they have an amazing way of updating the DVD with a new version? what do you think? Fine they might put a patch on the net, but you're left with an install DVD that at some stage in the future will cease to 'install' because the authorisation server will no longer be there. So to get a working install of Bioshock you'll need your original DVD *and* some downloaded patch - that's bullshit - I want my retail DVD to work forever by itself.
There have been a number of games (Splinter cell C:T and some other rally game) that remained unpirated for a long time after their release due to the SF3 protection used. Now I haven't seen any sales figures for these games, which surely must be absolutely massive. Why? has anyone seen the figures and do games that have not been pirated sell much more that expected?
yea still ...
it's Sir Jack Ass to you.
Some facts to back up this assertion? The last report I saw was about 2.4Billion from license fees and about 200Million from overseas sales. That makes the license fee the *opposite* of a small part! I think in the short term if the content was available online for non-commercial use worldwide (you can't make money from showing it with bloody adverts) that would be fair all round and it would make only a small dent in the international sales.
And I say once *we* (the fee paying public) have paid for it and watched it - give it away! - why not give it to the rest of the world? I doubt we'd be out of pocket much and the rest of the world would have Red Dwarf. If the UK pumped out quality TV to the rest of the world it might help balance some of our less savoury outputs.
Yea, I once read that 50% of Americans are below average intelligence.
and then we see the real issue come out, whether you can map someone else's 'thing' and publish it. Is it just their map protected or any map of their subway.