From the user's perspective it's similar. But is that important?
From the user's perspective, nuking another country may be the same as changing the channel on one's TV (i.e., pressing a button). But it isn't the same. What matters isn't the user experience, but what is actually going on.
For server based games, you can simply deny access for pirated copies.
Yes, this is clearly the right thing to do. Frankly, it's amazing that they didn't do it, and furthermore, that their servers collapsed under the load.
It sounds to me like shoddy preparation for the launch. Blaming the pirates is just a convenient way to ignore that.
It just leads to ridiculous consequences. If I link to TPB, am I now also contributing to copyright infringement?
No, because TPB itself, as a whole, is not illegal; some actions that were performed by its owners are.
'Some' actions? The argument is that it is most of the actions of their website.
Supposedly, by linking to TPB I am linking to a site whose main purpose is commercial infringement of copyright, and as such I am doing something supposedly illegal. Silly, but the whole argument is silly.
The second part is what I was referring to in my original post (the.torrent files they host have no real purpose except for distribution of the related work). This is hosting, not linking.
Hosting the torrent files? Yeah, they host those. But those aren't copyrighted. All they do is link to copyrighted material, in a very indirect manner in fact - they don't even link directly to it.
I see the logic in what you say. (One issue however is that the website owner might be unable to deal with a large amount of takedown notices.) And yes, refusal to obey takedown notices is clearly a major factor in this ruling.
I am still opposed to the argument that by linking to something you are committing a crime, even if someone tells you that it's illegal content. It just leads to ridiculous consequences. If I link to TPB, am I now also contributing to copyright infringement?
By that logic, bongs and other drug paraphernalia should be illegal. Do you think they should be?
If 1) drugs themselves are illegal in that state, and 2) the paraphernalia can only be used in such a way, then yes.
If #2 doesn't hold, then selling by itself isn't illegal, but knowingly selling to people who are using that for drugs should be (i.e. if the seller is provided evidence that the goods are being used in such a way by a customer, and keeps selling stuff to him).
Well, of course the stuff can be used for legal purposes: As a joke, a movie prop, with plain tobacco, etc. etc.
Regarding "selling by itself isn't illegal, but knowingly selling to people who are using that for drugs should be" - well, that's just it. Should the seller be forced to do a check of each customer? What if the seller is an automatic website - how should it do those checks?
Which brings us right back to the actual case: Should TPB be forced to obey takedown notices from the RIAA/MPAA? And if they don't, should they go to jail?
We should separate the site's name and childish antics (posting legal notices they get and mocking them, etc.), with what they actually do.
They provide links to stuff. Probably most of the stuff is copyrighted. But all they do is link to it. If a road is mainly used by drug dealers (maybe it's in a really bad neighborhood), should driving on it be illegal? To take the car analogy a step forward, what if the drug dealers finance a road in their neighborhood (that anyone can use) - the road is just a road, but would you argue it should be illegal because it'll be used mainly by drug dealers?
If you do all this manually, then you are yourself part of these drug transactions. That's conspiracy. But, if all you do is supply a website, that lets people use it for whatever they want - then that's very different, even if many users end up using it for illegal stuff.
Now, if your website is extremely drug-specific - say, it only lets you sign up if you admit to being a dealer or a user, and it only lets you use the service to connect between the two - then that's something I think should be illegal. But if it's a website that people can use for lots of stuff, then you shouldn't go to jail just because most of your users happen to like drugs.
You should, of course, comply with requests by law enforcement when those requests are legal.
I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.
Will, IMHO the arguments are pretty straightforward:
TPB is just linking to material. They don't host it. Yes, they 'make it easier to infringe', but the line between what TPB is doing and what e.g. the roads are doing (helping bank robbers get away, the horror!) is one of degree, and more importantly, it isn't clear where the line is - or if one can be drawn. Yet the court drew the line, and the consequences will be felt in many other areas, to society's detriment.
Many support TPB because they are against 'intellectual property'. You say you make money from that, so obviously you are going to believe it is a worthwhile concept. Yet, it is a very troubling and damaging one. This is particularly evident with patents, but is also present with copyright law.
Perhaps the simplest way to make this clear is to consider that existing copyright law is hopelessly outdated and irrelevant to the digital age. Notice that we don't 'copyright' jokes. Why not? Well, people retell jokes, have been doing so for millenia, and nobody has even thought to 'tax' each retelling of a joke - it would be futile and silly. And yet the exact same thing has happened to digital media - people can share files very easily and are naturally motivated to do so. Preventing this - through DRM or the law - is tantamount to trying to change the natural order of things, like a comedian trying to charge people whenever they tell his joke. It's laughable. And yet we have just seen people sentenced to jail in a parallel situation.
Another reason Slashdot is in favor of TPB is that they are basically the onle group proudly standing up - in a showy way, even - against the madness of the RIAA et al., by which I mean suing their customers, attempting to maintain a hopeless business model, etc. In that sense, TPB is certainly 'good for society', regardless of whether you consider their actions detrimental in other respects.
Yes, TPB are also childish in how they do this, but at least they do it. So even older Slashdotters like myself have some fondness for TPB, even while at the same time we are somewhat embarrassed by their antics.
I don't know about "far more advanced than other FOSS engines".
How about the OGRE rendering engine, used by e.g. OpenFrag? OGRE is highly advanced and even used by commercial games. Aside from being written in GLSL and targeting OpenGL 3.0, what does XreaL have that OGRE doesn't? (Note that OGRE has addons for a lot of stuff, like HDR, realistic water, etc. etc. - so take those into account in your comparison).
I agree 100% with what you say in this comment - you're exactly right. In fact, you are so right that I've been working on a FOSS project with exactly this motivation in mind: Ease of development over eye candy, while still maintaining decent 3D visuals.
(It isn't released yet, so I can't link you to it, and anyhow I don't want to toot my own horn in a discussion about another project. But, I felt I'd mention this just to show how much I agree with what you wrote.)
Not only YAFPS, but also the screenshots are poorer than other FOSS FPSes. For example, they lack basics such as dynamic shadows.
It seems the article authors got excited from the claim that the engine is written in GLSL and is OpenGL 3.0-focused. That, and the engine developer is not exactly humble, with claims like "definitely the most advanced open-source game engine".
Instead of dissing other engines - which offer greatly superior visuals, to boot, just look at screenshots - he should let his achievements speak for themselves. They don't, thus far.
Does this mean that the source code would be freely available, but that you couldn't use it without paying them? I skimmed the artical and linked pages, but can't figure out what this would actually mean.
TFA says that it includes a patent covenant not to sue two classes of people: Those distributing only the source, and those compiling for 'internal purposes' only.
It seems to me that the second case would handle e.g. Linux users that compile and run the code on their machine, and use it to view content. The first case is less clear, it seems that it might be intended to cover people 'working' with the code, and that might possibly extend to Linux distros that distribute the code (but not binaries) to their users (who can then compile it).
Not sure if it's achieved, but the goal seems to be to sell patent licenses to big corporations that make lots of money off of this sort of thing, while not bothering with individuals and hobbyists.
The GPL is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist anymore. Big unix is dead. Open source is here and it has the momentum, but the GPL is dead weight.
What if GPL code suddenly turned to BSD code and Microsoft (or anyone else) could steal it? History has shown that private forks of open source software generally don't work.
No, private forks often work. Look at what Apple did with BSD, what IBM did with OpenOffice and Apache, etc. etc. Also look at what Apple would have done with KHTML if it didn't have to keep it open (I presume what it did with BSD).
The GPL and LGPL are very important for various reasons. Another is that it allows profitable dual-licensing models, such as used by Sun and Nokia. The BSD doesn't allow that. There is a place for both types of licenses.
First, IronPython isn't 100% compatible with CPython (neither is Jython, for that matter).
Second, speed-wise, it depends on the benchmark, but overall performance isn't much better. However, it does have good threading support - no GIL - which is a plus.
With a ton of intranet apps being developed to run in the browser, why not add this capability?
Well, in a slight change of topic, one issue with adding this capability is security.
It seems this is basically a thin wrapper around OpenGL (ES). That means we'd be giving arbitrary code in web pages basically direct access to OpenGL drivers, which opens up an entire new world of potential exploits: OpenGL drivers are big and complicated, and have never really been put in such a position (typical OpenGL apps are programs you download and run, which anyhow already have access to your computer).
I think I heard that somewhere. Here is my hope: -
As Google releases these betas, those capable keep up and push out a native QT (and therefore KDE) based "Google Chrome" browser. I hope this is not too much to ask for.
The Google devs are using GTK, the reason given was that the relevant people had GTK expertise already so they preferred it. The community might conceivably create a Qt version, but I doubt it: We already have great WebKit support in Qt, and Konqueror as well, and V8 isn't obviously much better than SquirrelFish Extreme.
On a side note, I wonder why they have to call it "Google Chrome" on Windows and "Chromium" on Linux.
The name is the same on both. Chrome is the full browser, which uses the Chromium open source library as its base. Chrome itself might contain non-open source components in theory, non-free artwork branding, etc. - but I don't know if it does.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! In particular I wasn't fully aware of how Windows does this stuff.
Durability is my prime concern in the Python example I mentioned. For atomicity I generally would use something like SQLite anyhow (assuming the performance penalty is acceptable, at least).
Ok, if atomic rename is a *NIX tradition, then I guess that might be justification for using it, and for resolving this issue in the way you suggest.
Personally, it seems 'cleaner' to me to do fsync on files that I absolutely want to get written to disk, especially since it's portable over OSes to some extent - e.g., Python's os.fsync() calls whatever Windows function is necessary to ensure writing to disk. So that's how I write my own code.
Slashdot Mirror
From the user's perspective it's similar. But is that important?
From the user's perspective, nuking another country may be the same as changing the channel on one's TV (i.e., pressing a button). But it isn't the same. What matters isn't the user experience, but what is actually going on.
For server based games, you can simply deny access for pirated copies.
Yes, this is clearly the right thing to do. Frankly, it's amazing that they didn't do it, and furthermore, that their servers collapsed under the load.
It sounds to me like shoddy preparation for the launch. Blaming the pirates is just a convenient way to ignore that.
If the legal argument were regarding some specific torrents, I imagine those torrents would have been mentioned, but I didn't see that.
Ok. Well, ignoring their name, I continue to claim that they shouldn't be guilty of anything, I guess we'll disagree on that.
It just leads to ridiculous consequences. If I link to TPB, am I now also contributing to copyright infringement?
No, because TPB itself, as a whole, is not illegal; some actions that were performed by its owners are.
'Some' actions? The argument is that it is most of the actions of their website.
Supposedly, by linking to TPB I am linking to a site whose main purpose is commercial infringement of copyright, and as such I am doing something supposedly illegal. Silly, but the whole argument is silly.
The second part is what I was referring to in my original post (the .torrent files they host have no real purpose except for distribution of the related work). This is hosting, not linking.
Hosting the torrent files? Yeah, they host those. But those aren't copyrighted. All they do is link to copyrighted material, in a very indirect manner in fact - they don't even link directly to it.
So you'd send people to jail, because of the humorous name they gave their website?
I see the logic in what you say. (One issue however is that the website owner might be unable to deal with a large amount of takedown notices.) And yes, refusal to obey takedown notices is clearly a major factor in this ruling.
I am still opposed to the argument that by linking to something you are committing a crime, even if someone tells you that it's illegal content. It just leads to ridiculous consequences. If I link to TPB, am I now also contributing to copyright infringement?
By that logic, bongs and other drug paraphernalia should be illegal. Do you think they should be?
If 1) drugs themselves are illegal in that state, and 2) the paraphernalia can only be used in such a way, then yes.
If #2 doesn't hold, then selling by itself isn't illegal, but knowingly selling to people who are using that for drugs should be (i.e. if the seller is provided evidence that the goods are being used in such a way by a customer, and keeps selling stuff to him).
Well, of course the stuff can be used for legal purposes: As a joke, a movie prop, with plain tobacco, etc. etc.
Regarding "selling by itself isn't illegal, but knowingly selling to people who are using that for drugs should be" - well, that's just it. Should the seller be forced to do a check of each customer? What if the seller is an automatic website - how should it do those checks?
Which brings us right back to the actual case: Should TPB be forced to obey takedown notices from the RIAA/MPAA? And if they don't, should they go to jail?
We should separate the site's name and childish antics (posting legal notices they get and mocking them, etc.), with what they actually do.
They provide links to stuff. Probably most of the stuff is copyrighted. But all they do is link to it. If a road is mainly used by drug dealers (maybe it's in a really bad neighborhood), should driving on it be illegal? To take the car analogy a step forward, what if the drug dealers finance a road in their neighborhood (that anyone can use) - the road is just a road, but would you argue it should be illegal because it'll be used mainly by drug dealers?
By that logic, bongs and other drug paraphernalia should be illegal. Do you think they should be?
There is one big difference here.
If you do all this manually, then you are yourself part of these drug transactions. That's conspiracy. But, if all you do is supply a website, that lets people use it for whatever they want - then that's very different, even if many users end up using it for illegal stuff.
Now, if your website is extremely drug-specific - say, it only lets you sign up if you admit to being a dealer or a user, and it only lets you use the service to connect between the two - then that's something I think should be illegal. But if it's a website that people can use for lots of stuff, then you shouldn't go to jail just because most of your users happen to like drugs.
You should, of course, comply with requests by law enforcement when those requests are legal.
I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.
Will, IMHO the arguments are pretty straightforward:
Perhaps the simplest way to make this clear is to consider that existing copyright law is hopelessly outdated and irrelevant to the digital age. Notice that we don't 'copyright' jokes. Why not? Well, people retell jokes, have been doing so for millenia, and nobody has even thought to 'tax' each retelling of a joke - it would be futile and silly. And yet the exact same thing has happened to digital media - people can share files very easily and are naturally motivated to do so. Preventing this - through DRM or the law - is tantamount to trying to change the natural order of things, like a comedian trying to charge people whenever they tell his joke. It's laughable. And yet we have just seen people sentenced to jail in a parallel situation.
Yes, TPB are also childish in how they do this, but at least they do it. So even older Slashdotters like myself have some fondness for TPB, even while at the same time we are somewhat embarrassed by their antics.
I don't know about "far more advanced than other FOSS engines".
How about the OGRE rendering engine, used by e.g. OpenFrag? OGRE is highly advanced and even used by commercial games. Aside from being written in GLSL and targeting OpenGL 3.0, what does XreaL have that OGRE doesn't? (Note that OGRE has addons for a lot of stuff, like HDR, realistic water, etc. etc. - so take those into account in your comparison).
Those are indeed much better. A shame that Phoronix didn't use those...
I agree 100% with what you say in this comment - you're exactly right. In fact, you are so right that I've been working on a FOSS project with exactly this motivation in mind: Ease of development over eye candy, while still maintaining decent 3D visuals.
(It isn't released yet, so I can't link you to it, and anyhow I don't want to toot my own horn in a discussion about another project. But, I felt I'd mention this just to show how much I agree with what you wrote.)
YAFPS
Not only YAFPS, but also the screenshots are poorer than other FOSS FPSes. For example, they lack basics such as dynamic shadows.
It seems the article authors got excited from the claim that the engine is written in GLSL and is OpenGL 3.0-focused. That, and the engine developer is not exactly humble, with claims like "definitely the most advanced open-source game engine".
Instead of dissing other engines - which offer greatly superior visuals, to boot, just look at screenshots - he should let his achievements speak for themselves. They don't, thus far.
Does this mean that the source code would be freely available, but that you couldn't use it without paying them? I skimmed the artical and linked pages, but can't figure out what this would actually mean.
TFA says that it includes a patent covenant not to sue two classes of people: Those distributing only the source, and those compiling for 'internal purposes' only.
It seems to me that the second case would handle e.g. Linux users that compile and run the code on their machine, and use it to view content. The first case is less clear, it seems that it might be intended to cover people 'working' with the code, and that might possibly extend to Linux distros that distribute the code (but not binaries) to their users (who can then compile it).
Not sure if it's achieved, but the goal seems to be to sell patent licenses to big corporations that make lots of money off of this sort of thing, while not bothering with individuals and hobbyists.
The GPL is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist anymore. Big unix is dead. Open source is here and it has the momentum, but the GPL is dead weight. What if GPL code suddenly turned to BSD code and Microsoft (or anyone else) could steal it? History has shown that private forks of open source software generally don't work.
No, private forks often work. Look at what Apple did with BSD, what IBM did with OpenOffice and Apache, etc. etc. Also look at what Apple would have done with KHTML if it didn't have to keep it open (I presume what it did with BSD).
The GPL and LGPL are very important for various reasons. Another is that it allows profitable dual-licensing models, such as used by Sun and Nokia. The BSD doesn't allow that. There is a place for both types of licenses.
First, IronPython isn't 100% compatible with CPython (neither is Jython, for that matter).
Second, speed-wise, it depends on the benchmark, but overall performance isn't much better. However, it does have good threading support - no GIL - which is a plus.
With a ton of intranet apps being developed to run in the browser, why not add this capability?
Well, in a slight change of topic, one issue with adding this capability is security.
It seems this is basically a thin wrapper around OpenGL (ES). That means we'd be giving arbitrary code in web pages basically direct access to OpenGL drivers, which opens up an entire new world of potential exploits: OpenGL drivers are big and complicated, and have never really been put in such a position (typical OpenGL apps are programs you download and run, which anyhow already have access to your computer).
I think I heard that somewhere. Here is my hope: -
As Google releases these betas, those capable keep up and push out a native QT (and therefore KDE) based "Google Chrome" browser. I hope this is not too much to ask for.
The Google devs are using GTK, the reason given was that the relevant people had GTK expertise already so they preferred it. The community might conceivably create a Qt version, but I doubt it: We already have great WebKit support in Qt, and Konqueror as well, and V8 isn't obviously much better than SquirrelFish Extreme.
On a side note, I wonder why they have to call it "Google Chrome" on Windows and "Chromium" on Linux.
The name is the same on both. Chrome is the full browser, which uses the Chromium open source library as its base. Chrome itself might contain non-open source components in theory, non-free artwork branding, etc. - but I don't know if it does.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! In particular I wasn't fully aware of how Windows does this stuff.
Durability is my prime concern in the Python example I mentioned. For atomicity I generally would use something like SQLite anyhow (assuming the performance penalty is acceptable, at least).
Ok, if atomic rename is a *NIX tradition, then I guess that might be justification for using it, and for resolving this issue in the way you suggest.
Personally, it seems 'cleaner' to me to do fsync on files that I absolutely want to get written to disk, especially since it's portable over OSes to some extent - e.g., Python's os.fsync() calls whatever Windows function is necessary to ensure writing to disk. So that's how I write my own code.
I think I see your point. But isn't it a bit odd to do a rename operation for this purpose? It isn't what renames are for.