Microsoft extended the PlaysForSure authentication to at least 2011
I hadn't heard about that. I don't have any playsforsure music though, so I really don't keep on top of it.
Looking at it now, it looks like 'playsforsure' brand is moving to 'certified for Windows Vista'... I have no idea what that means for playsforsure music, or Zune compatibility... and to be honest, I really don't much care.
and you don't lose the ability to play the music you already have on your computer.
Right. Provided its licensed on that computer.
What would happen is that you would no longer be able to move the music to a different computer or operating system.
So much for that upgrade to Vista they'd like to sell you. Or the fact that the average PC is replaced every 3-4 years.
While certainly not a good thing, this is a far cry from all of your music being instantly gone and unplayable.
Yes, actually it does. The only question is what the exact timing of that -instant- will be.
If you can afford to ski, you can afford to buy something better than a scratchy knit hat with face holes in it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wearing one while skiing, and that includes historical pictures.
You must be thinking 'alpine or whistler' style downhill skiing, on balmy sunny days, like in the movies, with an expensive lift ticket, and hot chocolate at the lodge between runs.
Try going x-country in the prairies when its overcast (the usual) and with a light wind. Its a pretty popular sport/activity there.
x-country Skiing is not expensive either. Hell, for under a hundred bucks you can get a cheap set of skiis and boots and then go on x-country trails in the prairies as much as you like. And x-country in the prairies at 30+ below zero, you want something on your face more substantial than 'goggles'. Plus there would be absolutely no reason to wear goggles... the sun and snow blindness were rarely an issue -- it is usually overcast.
As a kid I also wore a balaclava while waiting for the schoolbus in winter, or playing outside (skating on homemade rinks, building snow forts, pulling my siblings around on a toboggan. I wore them as a an adult while shoveling snow to get my car out. And they were a common enough sight on anyone spending any length of time outside in a prairie winter, especially at night.
And besides, the pair of eye holes isn't shaped well for accommodating the kind of ski mask I have seen a lot of. The kind that is polarized and/or tinted. More often called "goggles."
Pair of eye holes? Goggles?
You are aware that the most common type of balaclava just has a single large 'eye' or 'face' hole, right? And that these are entirely compatible with goggles. The eye hole type would be more desirable for even more extreme cold, especially at night.
No, sorry, at least for those in the northern 2/3 of North America, Fahrenheit works better for day-to-day considerations of human comfort (and perception of environmental "hot" and "cold").
As someone from Canada, and formerly resident of Manitoba, I find Celsius works just fine.
0 degrees F is painfully cold on exposed flesh. 100 F is dangerously hot (unless you're in one of the freakishly-low-humidity regions and you're hydrated well enough to not die of dehydration trying to sweat off the heat.)
0C is chilly, not 'mildy cool'. -10 is cold, -20 is very cold. -30 is damn cold. -40 is I'm not going outside. +10 is cool, +20 is warm, +30 is hot, +40 is "I'm not coming out the shade/water/airconditioning."
As to the precision issue, you can't dispute that 1 degree Celsius is a broader temperature differential than 1 degree Fahrenheit. So, for as little as it matters on a day-to-day basis, 1/10 degree is more precise in Fahrenheit than Celsius.
Other than when taking my own temperature I don't care about the decimal point. Hell, for day to day living, I don't even care about the exact degree. I live by ranges. To me, 12C is pretty much the same as 14C. 21C is pretty much the same as 23C. Etc.
My approach would document a lot more than just the whereabouts of speed traps... I'd have a record of their trips to the pub, donut shop, home, the mall. I'd know when they were speeding. etc etc. I'd know if if there were additional 'revenue' speed traps that weren't on the website.
There is a BIG difference between what they voluntarily put up on the web, and what might be found out if someone were to track them (whether electronically or in person).
My experience in D2 with a variety of Sorcersses that were usually extremely good in 2 of the 3 trees... 30 skill in chain lightning + 30 skill in frozen orb for example plus a bunch of auxilliary skills / items for mana regen, resistances, etc.
I still found the end of nightmare / hell very hard. Sure I could kill everything on a regular screen almost instantly, and even most bosses were a cakewalk. But the big level bosses and their minions were hard (Duriel, Mephisto, Diablo, and Baal) -- but while hard, I knew they were coming and was appropriately prepared and cautious.
I usually died to the random unique bosses... particularly those that spawned with that reflective lightinging/triple damage ability... they'd be in a crowd of crap...I just be wandering around minding my own business, and I'd fill the screen with death... only to have wave upon wave of that reflected crap come back at unsuspecting old me, and kill me dead in nothing flat.
It was one of the reasons 'hill runs' were so popular, there were no random bosses, just the one level boss (who was always the same, in the same place, and a cakewalk).
Ah okay that makes sense--Steam itself as "the asset" rather than people's games.
Right.
What vux should have said was that the servers would have to stay up in the event of bankruptcy.
Not quite. Valve should -try- to keep the servers up in the event of a bankruptcy for the reason given, but if Valve's ISP pulls the plug because the bills aren't paid, Valve is STILL obligated not to just release keys for all the software, because there is still a potential that they can sell those offline servers to a body that might bring them back up again.
And if Valve's debt gets bought up by someone who wants some patent Valve owns, and doesn't really give a shit about the steam service, Valve STILL can't release the keys, because they now belong to the new owner. The new owner, if they don't care, could release the keys, but if you look at the last 30 years of history, you'll find a strong pattern of this NOT happening.
The way he said it it sounded more like Valve was going to say "As our final act, we're going to rip off all our customers by making their purchases null and void...mwahahaha"
Sadly, given that you are a "subscriber", not an "owner" of those games, if they simply terminated your subscriptions and closed their doors you wouldn't have much of leg to stand on. They don't even have to go bankrupt.
No. An isolated promotion does not amount to my statement that you can't transfer your software being false.
That was a one time exception for a single particular bundle. I don't deny the system is *capable* of allowing transfers, but other than that one exception, you can't transfer squat.
When Orange box came out, not only did they allow the transfer of your old versions of Half Life 2 and Half Life 2 Episode 1. They actively marketed it to make sure that people knew that they could transfer their copies to friends.
right. just orange box, and only if you happened to already own components of it. hell, you couldn't even transfer the parts of the orange box you didn't want if you didn't already have them.
So the only time in the history of steam you could ever transfer a title is if you effectively bought 2 copies of it. Then you were allowed to transfer the 2nd copy out... and even that only applies if you obtained the 2nd copy via the orange box promo.
Now some of the other games distributed via steam are not owned by Valve, so they don't have the right to offer that for all games.
1) Bullshit. If the customer *bought* it, the customer has the right to transfer it. I don't need permission from the vendor to transfer any of my other purchased software. Why would I need vender permission to transfer steam software? But as far as steam is concerned, I 'subscribe' to software, I do not own it. So I have no rights, and they can terminate my subscription to all "my" software whenever they want to boot.
2) Take a look at all the software Valve DOES own. How much of it can you transfer. NONE OF IT, except for the aforementioned orangebox promo.
He *has* thrown some jabs at Obama and Clinton lately, but audience reaction was not great. (After making fun of Obama for flip-flopping on public financing: "It's okay to laugh at him, y'know.") He may be forced by his audience to veer left.
Oh I don't know, he lampooned the whole Obama vs Clinton campaign pretty regularly. (Both shows did actually.) And Bill Clinton in particular has been pot-shotted a fair bit, as has Congress's non-binding resolutions, giving into Bush, and so on.
But Obama, its true, he hasn't taken the same beating the other canditates have on Stewart/Colbert, but quite simply, that's because Obama HAS managed to appear less ridiculous less often, and more importantly, the ridiculous stuff he does do is so thoroughly overblown by the media that the comedy shows are almost forced to lampoon the media, indirectly siding with Obama.
I mean the 'terrorist fist bump'? 'barack HUSSEIN obama' repeated ad nauseum? the loony drama with his preacher?... I think these would have been fair game for Stewart/Colbert punchlines but after the mainstream media got through with them, the media was the much more juicy and pathetic target.
Yes, Cocain and other hard drugs do have a slim chance of killing you outright, in large part because its illegal, its quality is unregulated, and only god knows what that line in front of you bought from some dealer you met while drunk at the club was cut with.
Nope, Glider was only a problem because the copying to RAM wasn't part of the software's normal operation. Copying to RAM when you use the software is allowed, as the other commenters have pointed out.
Two responses:
1) "normal operation"? Why should that matter? Why is it up to blizzard "how" I USE it? I thought this whole debate was that there was a fundamental difference between copying for "distribution" and copying for "use". This is clearly USE, and yet I am still exposed to copyright infringment for USE simply because I'm not using it the way blizzard wants?
2) Further to that, making a backup of software to another hard drive as part of a regular backup routine isn't part of the software's normal operations. Moving a running VM from one physical host to another by cloning the running process isn't part of the software's normal operations. Do I need vender permission to make these copies of my software which isn't strictly required to operate it, but yet which result from the way I choose to use it.
So you're basically saying that people who buy on Steam are idiots and deserve what they get if Steam goes away?
Yes, people who buy anything that is protected by DRM, in a world where breaking the DRM is illegal, even if the company that made it is out of business and cant authenticate your purchase anymore is an idiot.
I'm not saying they deserve to be screwed. They deserve better.
Fuck you.
Seriously, its not =me= that's going to be responsible for your purchases not working one day.
If Valve goes away they are obligated to their consumers to provide them the products they bought. All of them, for free and forever. If that means a noCD crack, too damn bad for the creditors.
Perhaps you should look into the ugly world of failed businesses and see just what happens to their customers. Their intellectual property. I assure its VERY VERY VERY RARELY a happy ending for anyone. Hell, try these on for size:
How much longer do you think "Plays for sure" music is going to be usable, now that Microsoft has discontinued it? "Microsoft announced that as of August 31, 2008, PlaysForSure content from their retired MSN Music store would need to be licensed to play before this date or burned permanently to CD."
Fortunately consumers were given permission to burn songs to CD, so if they act fast, they can burn it, and then rip it back in an unprotected format. What happens next month? Poof? Oh, sure there are tools to crack the files out there... but their legality in the face of the DMCA is pretty questionable.
And these are both corporations that are doing well, that have said fuck-you to the consumer. You really think Valve is going to honour what you think their obligtation to you is in a bankruptcy scenario? HA. Seriously. Read the fine print of the terms of service. They have virtually no obligation to you at all.
If Ford goes out of business, you want them to steal your truck? I think not.
Isn't that cute, you think you -bought- Valve software. No. You just 'subscribe to it' (read the fine print, your a subscriber not a customer, you pay one time fees to subscribe to their games, you don't buy them). And when they go under, your 'subscription' ends.
Finally, this is the same Valve that today when its doing just fine, won't allow you to transfer something you claim you own to someone else. You can't move a title from your account to someone else. You can't transfer your entire account to someone else. Per the terms you can't have two people using your account.
Think about this: you can't even have two different people use two different online titles on one account at the same time. So, here you've bought 2 different games, and you can't use both of them online at the same time? Yeah, Valve really is honoring their obligations to your purchases NOW. Your on crack if you think they are going to suddenly honor them in their death throes.
Bruce Schneier posted an article a while ago about how the idea that if we "just watched the police as much as they watched us, it balances things out" is false. Police have POWER, most people do not. This means that they are able to do things with their knowledge that we, with the same knowledge, cannot.
That may be true, but its frighening enough that we can't even watch them as much as they watch us. That shows just how unbalanced things are.
I'm sure various trustworthy organizations will volunteer to continue running the Steam authentication servers. At the very least, if Valve/Steam does go belly-up, and my company is in the position to do so, it will be volunteering.
As I've said elsewhere, if valve/steam goes belly-up, the creditors will be calling the shots. It won't be up to valve whether or not they get to hand off authentication servers to volunteers. And the creditors will likely prefer to have the whole thing auctioned off for what they can get, and then its up to the new owner what happens, or whether that is even a piece of the company they are really interested in running. Hundreds of games have been lost in this buyout/bankruptcy 'abandonware' limbo, where in many cases the company that owns the title doesn't even really know it, yet if you bring it to their attention and ask them to release, sell it, or license it, they simply have no interest in it.
Valve is currently still private, so they can damn well do whatever they please in regards to the end of Steam.
That just removes shareholders from the equation. If they are going bankrupt, then they will still have creditors. If they are getting bought out, then they will have obligations as a result of that.
The only real shot of valve has of 'doing whatever they want in regards to the end of steam' would be to simply quit while they are ahead, close the doors, and say they are done. How likely do you think that scenario is?
Either a buy out or a bankruptcy is a far more likely end. Not to mention the odds of being taken public at some point.
What makes you so sure they won't? Its not like they haven't already done this before, The last update for Half Life one released in around 03' striped the CD check.
Because if they are going under or being bought out they no longer call the shots. They actually have much more freedom to do something like this now than they would if they were about to croak.
I suggest you read the last sentence.
Backing up your game collection to DVD isn't going to work if it won't play on the new computer you restore it to.
Step one does protect the rights of software owners. Step two is just a back-up.
Step one is effectively worthless. Offline mode is unreliable, and sooner or later will fail, whether you upgrade your PC or not. Step two is effectively illegal; it shouldn't be, but it is.
You shouldn't have to break the law to use your own products. Yes, the laws are wrong, and need to be changed, but that isn't the direction society is heading right now.
If, and when Steam goes down that would not mean that you are unable to play your games. There are at least two present day work-a-rounds, not even counting the possibility that Valve releases a no-cd.exe before they croak.
When Valve croaks, they will not release a no-cd crack. If bankrupt they will be obligated by their creditors not to devalue assets by giving them away for free. If bought out, same thing.
1. When the Steam servers go down and your client fails to connect just throw it into offline mode. Then burn a back-up DVD of your game collect for future use.
And pray you never buy a new computer? Good plan.
2. Head over to TPB and grab a no-steam cracked copy of the game.
So your solution to failed copyprotection is use utilitilies that violate the DMCA and expose creators and users to liability? I'd think a real solution would protect the owners of software from defunct companies, not criminalize them.
It seems like it would belong to you at that point, but I doubt that would hold up in court; if you did anything with it, an accusation of impeding a police investigation would probably trump your claim of ownership. Then again, doing anything other than what a police officer arbitrarily wants you to do could be construed as impeding an investigation.
Unless it actually says property of the police deparment on it, you'd have no reason to assume it belong to them. And if I found some unmarked metal box on my car, I'm pretty sure there is nothing preventing me from removing it.
On the other hand, if it does say, property of the police, I'd just return it to them.... stick it to the next parked patrol car i see.:)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day?
No.
If yes then I believe this should require a warrant.
But its no.
Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Good point. I wonder if the police would object if I went up to their patrol cars, ghost cars, and other vehicles and slapped my own gps transmitters on them, and then published their whearabouts in realtime on google maps. I mean, I could do all this legally if I just had a bunch of people follow their cars around all day and post their whearabouts, right?
So whats the diff except that it costs much less and is more discrete?
Yet, something tells me the police would object strenuously to this.
If they attach it to my car without my permission, doesn't it become MINE to do whatever I want with?
Good question. I'd think you could take it off and toss it in a dumpster if you found it.
Seriously, how many of these do they really expect to recover and download data from? Plus, doesn't it become "theft of services" the minute they hook it up to my car's electrical system?
I doubt they wire it in. Its probably just battery operated and attached magnetically, probably lasts 5-10 days, before they go pick it up/swap it out.
Look at it this way: If the models predicted that only 1% of systems had a closely orbiting gas giant, wouldn't the amount of close gas giants we have detected already disprove the models?
Based on the fact that we have closely orbiting gas giants known in some 6%+ of local systems, then yes, that would disprove the models.
That is what they seem to be saying here. And again, the probability that gas giants migrate inwards to close orbits comes from the simulations and not any observational data. That alone is enough to say that our solar system is rare.
Our old model is wrong. The new model is better because it fits more observed data. The new model also predicts that our solar system is rare, which makes it a useful model... it gives us testable predictions.
The next step is to test that prediction, not write headlines about how our solar system is rare.
The simple fact that new model was built around fitting the observed data means that it is biased to solving that problem.
To me, this is sort of like the 'dark matter' problem, where the vast majority of the universe is 'missing', but inferred to exist based on gravitational effects. I find it difficult to swallow that 96% of the universe has evaded detection. To me it is equally rational to assert that our model of gravity is incomplete/incorrect as it is to assert that almost all energy in the universe has evaded detection.
Similiarly, presenting conclusions as 'likely facts' from a model of planet formation that accounts for 5% of local stars, when we still can't see whats at the other 95%, and we know the 5% we can see have a major selection bias in that having massive inner orbit gas giants is precisely the only type of planet system we can reliably see, seems a little ridiculous.
I know the selection bias is the first thing that comes to mind when looking at this article, but I guarantee you that everyone who works in this field knows about it and takes it into account.
I think I can accept that. But it seems everyone who reports on this field doesn't.
Yes, there is such a distinction from the start -- copyright protects distribution, not use.
copyright protects *copy rights* including: copying, redistribution, performance, and broadcast.
You need a specific contract if you want your license to speak to use. For distribution, you reserve all rights under copyright law, license or no license.
What difference does it make when "using" the software entails making a copy to your hard drive, and then another copy into ram, and then another copy into cache? Using it entails copying it.
If I have no license to use it, I can't make those copies.
So you can't use it without a license.
And the courts have ALREADY made rulings that apply copyright infringement to occurring in an unauthorized 'disk to RAM' copy made by that WoW cheat program. (glider?)
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft extended the PlaysForSure authentication to at least 2011
I hadn't heard about that. I don't have any playsforsure music though, so I really don't keep on top of it.
Looking at it now, it looks like 'playsforsure' brand is moving to 'certified for Windows Vista'... I have no idea what that means for playsforsure music, or Zune compatibility... and to be honest, I really don't much care.
and you don't lose the ability to play the music you already have on your computer.
Right. Provided its licensed on that computer.
What would happen is that you would no longer be able to move the music to a different computer or operating system.
So much for that upgrade to Vista they'd like to sell you. Or the fact that the average PC is replaced every 3-4 years.
While certainly not a good thing, this is a far cry from all of your music being instantly gone and unplayable.
Yes, actually it does. The only question is what the exact timing of that -instant- will be.
If you can afford to ski, you can afford to buy something better than a scratchy knit hat with face holes in it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wearing one while skiing, and that includes historical pictures.
You must be thinking 'alpine or whistler' style downhill skiing, on balmy sunny days, like in the movies, with an expensive lift ticket, and hot chocolate at the lodge between runs.
Try going x-country in the prairies when its overcast (the usual) and with a light wind. Its a pretty popular sport/activity there.
x-country Skiing is not expensive either. Hell, for under a hundred bucks you can get a cheap set of skiis and boots and then go on x-country trails in the prairies as much as you like. And x-country in the prairies at 30+ below zero, you want something on your face more substantial than 'goggles'. Plus there would be absolutely no reason to wear goggles... the sun and snow blindness were rarely an issue -- it is usually overcast.
As a kid I also wore a balaclava while waiting for the schoolbus in winter, or playing outside (skating on homemade rinks, building snow forts, pulling my siblings around on a toboggan. I wore them as a an adult while shoveling snow to get my car out. And they were a common enough sight on anyone spending any length of time outside in a prairie winter, especially at night.
And besides, the pair of eye holes isn't shaped well for accommodating the kind of ski mask I have seen a lot of. The kind that is polarized and/or tinted. More often called "goggles."
Pair of eye holes? Goggles?
You are aware that the most common type of balaclava just has a single large 'eye' or 'face' hole, right? And that these are entirely compatible with goggles. The eye hole type would be more desirable for even more extreme cold, especially at night.
See for yourself:
http://images.google.ca/images?q=balaclava
By -40, do you mean F or C?
Both. Obviously. ;)
No, sorry, at least for those in the northern 2/3 of North America, Fahrenheit works better for day-to-day considerations of human comfort (and perception of environmental "hot" and "cold").
As someone from Canada, and formerly resident of Manitoba, I find Celsius works just fine.
0 degrees F is painfully cold on exposed flesh. 100 F is dangerously hot (unless you're in one of the freakishly-low-humidity regions and you're hydrated well enough to not die of dehydration trying to sweat off the heat.)
0C is chilly, not 'mildy cool'. -10 is cold, -20 is very cold. -30 is damn cold. -40 is I'm not going outside.
+10 is cool, +20 is warm, +30 is hot, +40 is "I'm not coming out the shade/water/airconditioning."
As to the precision issue, you can't dispute that 1 degree Celsius is a broader temperature differential than 1 degree Fahrenheit. So, for as little as it matters on a day-to-day basis, 1/10 degree is more precise in Fahrenheit than Celsius.
Other than when taking my own temperature I don't care about the decimal point. Hell, for day to day living, I don't even care about the exact degree. I live by ranges. To me, 12C is pretty much the same as 14C. 21C is pretty much the same as 23C. Etc.
My approach would document a lot more than just the whereabouts of speed traps... I'd have a record of their trips to the pub, donut shop, home, the mall. I'd know when they were speeding. etc etc. I'd know if if there were additional 'revenue' speed traps that weren't on the website.
There is a BIG difference between what they voluntarily put up on the web, and what might be found out if someone were to track them (whether electronically or in person).
My experience in D2 with a variety of Sorcersses that were usually extremely good in 2 of the 3 trees... 30 skill in chain lightning + 30 skill in frozen orb for example plus a bunch of auxilliary skills / items for mana regen, resistances, etc.
I still found the end of nightmare / hell very hard. Sure I could kill everything on a regular screen almost instantly, and even most bosses were a cakewalk. But the big level bosses and their minions were hard (Duriel, Mephisto, Diablo, and Baal) -- but while hard, I knew they were coming and was appropriately prepared and cautious.
I usually died to the random unique bosses ... particularly those that spawned with that reflective lightinging/triple damage ability... they'd be in a crowd of crap...I just be wandering around minding my own business, and I'd fill the screen with death... only to have wave upon wave of that reflected crap come back at unsuspecting old me, and kill me dead in nothing flat.
It was one of the reasons 'hill runs' were so popular, there were no random bosses, just the one level boss (who was always the same, in the same place, and a cakewalk).
Ah okay that makes sense--Steam itself as "the asset" rather than people's games.
Right.
What vux should have said was that the servers would have to stay up in the event of bankruptcy.
Not quite. Valve should -try- to keep the servers up in the event of a bankruptcy for the reason given, but if Valve's ISP pulls the plug because the bills aren't paid, Valve is STILL obligated not to just release keys for all the software, because there is still a potential that they can sell those offline servers to a body that might bring them back up again.
And if Valve's debt gets bought up by someone who wants some patent Valve owns, and doesn't really give a shit about the steam service, Valve STILL can't release the keys, because they now belong to the new owner. The new owner, if they don't care, could release the keys, but if you look at the last 30 years of history, you'll find a strong pattern of this NOT happening.
The way he said it it sounded more like Valve was going to say "As our final act, we're going to rip off all our customers by making their purchases null and void...mwahahaha"
Sadly, given that you are a "subscriber", not an "owner" of those games, if they simply terminated your subscriptions and closed their doors you wouldn't have much of leg to stand on. They don't even have to go bankrupt.
False.
No. An isolated promotion does not amount to my statement that you can't transfer your software being false.
That was a one time exception for a single particular bundle. I don't deny the system is *capable* of allowing transfers, but other than that one exception, you can't transfer squat.
When Orange box came out, not only did they allow the transfer of your old versions of Half Life 2 and Half Life 2 Episode 1. They actively marketed it to make sure that people knew that they could transfer their copies to friends.
right. just orange box, and only if you happened to already own components of it. hell, you couldn't even transfer the parts of the orange box you didn't want if you didn't already have them.
So the only time in the history of steam you could ever transfer a title is if you effectively bought 2 copies of it. Then you were allowed to transfer the 2nd copy out... and even that only applies if you obtained the 2nd copy via the orange box promo.
Now some of the other games distributed via steam are not owned by Valve, so they don't have the right to offer that for all games.
1) Bullshit. If the customer *bought* it, the customer has the right to transfer it. I don't need permission from the vendor to transfer any of my other purchased software. Why would I need vender permission to transfer steam software? But as far as steam is concerned, I 'subscribe' to software, I do not own it. So I have no rights, and they can terminate my subscription to all "my" software whenever they want to boot.
2) Take a look at all the software Valve DOES own. How much of it can you transfer. NONE OF IT, except for the aforementioned orangebox promo.
He *has* thrown some jabs at Obama and Clinton lately, but audience reaction was not great. (After making fun of Obama for flip-flopping on public financing: "It's okay to laugh at him, y'know.") He may be forced by his audience to veer left.
Oh I don't know, he lampooned the whole Obama vs Clinton campaign pretty regularly. (Both shows did actually.)
And Bill Clinton in particular has been pot-shotted a fair bit, as has Congress's non-binding resolutions, giving into Bush, and so on.
But Obama, its true, he hasn't taken the same beating the other canditates have on Stewart/Colbert, but quite simply, that's because Obama HAS managed to appear less ridiculous less often, and more importantly, the ridiculous stuff he does do is so thoroughly overblown by the media that the comedy shows are almost forced to lampoon the media, indirectly siding with Obama.
I mean the 'terrorist fist bump'? 'barack HUSSEIN obama' repeated ad nauseum? the loony drama with his preacher?... I think these would have been fair game for Stewart/Colbert punchlines but after the mainstream media got through with them, the media was the much more juicy and pathetic target.
And before you say it, principle of first sale does not apply; non-transferable licenses have long been recognized as valid.
Not on shrinkwrap software though, at least to my knowledge.
Yes, Cocain and other hard drugs do have a slim chance of killing you outright, in large part because its illegal, its quality is unregulated, and only god knows what that line in front of you bought from some dealer you met while drunk at the club was cut with.
Nope, Glider was only a problem because the copying to RAM wasn't part of the software's normal operation. Copying to RAM when you use the software is allowed, as the other commenters have pointed out.
Two responses:
1) "normal operation"? Why should that matter? Why is it up to blizzard "how" I USE it? I thought this whole debate was that there was a fundamental difference between copying for "distribution" and copying for "use". This is clearly USE, and yet I am still exposed to copyright infringment for USE simply because I'm not using it the way blizzard wants?
2) Further to that, making a backup of software to another hard drive as part of a regular backup routine isn't part of the software's normal operations. Moving a running VM from one physical host to another by cloning the running process isn't part of the software's normal operations. Do I need vender permission to make these copies of my software which isn't strictly required to operate it, but yet which result from the way I choose to use it.
So you're basically saying that people who buy on Steam are idiots and deserve what they get if Steam goes away?
Yes, people who buy anything that is protected by DRM, in a world where breaking the DRM is illegal, even if the company that made it is out of business and cant authenticate your purchase anymore is an idiot.
I'm not saying they deserve to be screwed. They deserve better.
Fuck you.
Seriously, its not =me= that's going to be responsible for your purchases not working one day.
If Valve goes away they are obligated to their consumers to provide them the products they bought. All of them, for free and forever. If that means a noCD crack, too damn bad for the creditors.
Perhaps you should look into the ugly world of failed businesses and see just what happens to their customers. Their intellectual property. I assure its VERY VERY VERY RARELY a happy ending for anyone. Hell, try these on for size:
How much longer do you think "Plays for sure" music is going to be usable, now that Microsoft has discontinued it?
"Microsoft announced that as of August 31, 2008, PlaysForSure content from their retired MSN Music store would need to be licensed to play before this date or burned permanently to CD."
Fortunately consumers were given permission to burn songs to CD, so if they act fast, they can burn it, and then rip it back in an unprotected format. What happens next month? Poof? Oh, sure there are tools to crack the files out there... but their legality in the face of the DMCA is pretty questionable.
How about another example? Major League Baseball changes DRM, and old content no longer viewable.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071107-major-league-baseballs-drm-change-strikes-out-with-fans.html
And these are both corporations that are doing well, that have said fuck-you to the consumer. You really think Valve is going to honour what you think their obligtation to you is in a bankruptcy scenario? HA. Seriously. Read the fine print of the terms of service. They have virtually no obligation to you at all.
If Ford goes out of business, you want them to steal your truck? I think not.
Isn't that cute, you think you -bought- Valve software. No. You just 'subscribe to it' (read the fine print, your a subscriber not a customer, you pay one time fees to subscribe to their games, you don't buy them). And when they go under, your 'subscription' ends.
Finally, this is the same Valve that today when its doing just fine, won't allow you to transfer something you claim you own to someone else. You can't move a title from your account to someone else. You can't transfer your entire account to someone else. Per the terms you can't have two people using your account.
Think about this: you can't even have two different people use two different online titles on one account at the same time. So, here you've bought 2 different games, and you can't use both of them online at the same time? Yeah, Valve really is honoring their obligations to your purchases NOW. Your on crack if you think they are going to suddenly honor them in their death throes.
Bruce Schneier posted an article a while ago about how the idea that if we "just watched the police as much as they watched us, it balances things out" is false. Police have POWER, most people do not. This means that they are able to do things with their knowledge that we, with the same knowledge, cannot.
That may be true, but its frighening enough that we can't even watch them as much as they watch us. That shows just how unbalanced things are.
I'm sure various trustworthy organizations will volunteer to continue running the Steam authentication servers. At the very least, if Valve/Steam does go belly-up, and my company is in the position to do so, it will be volunteering.
As I've said elsewhere, if valve/steam goes belly-up, the creditors will be calling the shots. It won't be up to valve whether or not they get to hand off authentication servers to volunteers. And the creditors will likely prefer to have the whole thing auctioned off for what they can get, and then its up to the new owner what happens, or whether that is even a piece of the company they are really interested in running. Hundreds of games have been lost in this buyout/bankruptcy 'abandonware' limbo, where in many cases the company that owns the title doesn't even really know it, yet if you bring it to their attention and ask them to release, sell it, or license it, they simply have no interest in it.
Valve is currently still private, so they can damn well do whatever they please in regards to the end of Steam.
That just removes shareholders from the equation. If they are going bankrupt, then they will still have creditors. If they are getting bought out, then they will have obligations as a result of that.
The only real shot of valve has of 'doing whatever they want in regards to the end of steam' would be to simply quit while they are ahead, close the doors, and say they are done. How likely do you think that scenario is?
Either a buy out or a bankruptcy is a far more likely end. Not to mention the odds of being taken public at some point.
What makes you so sure they won't? Its not like they haven't already done this before, The last update for Half Life one released in around 03' striped the CD check.
Because if they are going under or being bought out they no longer call the shots. They actually have much more freedom to do something like this now than they would if they were about to croak.
I suggest you read the last sentence.
Backing up your game collection to DVD isn't going to work if it won't play on the new computer you restore it to.
Step one does protect the rights of software owners. Step two is just a back-up.
Step one is effectively worthless. Offline mode is unreliable, and sooner or later will fail, whether you upgrade your PC or not. Step two is effectively illegal; it shouldn't be, but it is.
You shouldn't have to break the law to use your own products. Yes, the laws are wrong, and need to be changed, but that isn't the direction society is heading right now.
If, and when Steam goes down that would not mean that you are unable to play your games. There are at least two present day work-a-rounds, not even counting the possibility that Valve releases a no-cd.exe before they croak.
When Valve croaks, they will not release a no-cd crack. If bankrupt they will be obligated by their creditors not to devalue assets by giving them away for free. If bought out, same thing.
1. When the Steam servers go down and your client fails to connect just throw it into offline mode. Then burn a back-up DVD of your game collect for future use.
And pray you never buy a new computer? Good plan.
2. Head over to TPB and grab a no-steam cracked copy of the game.
So your solution to failed copyprotection is use utilitilies that violate the DMCA and expose creators and users to liability? I'd think a real solution would protect the owners of software from defunct companies, not criminalize them.
It seems like it would belong to you at that point, but I doubt that would hold up in court; if you did anything with it, an accusation of impeding a police investigation would probably trump your claim of ownership. Then again, doing anything other than what a police officer arbitrarily wants you to do could be construed as impeding an investigation.
Unless it actually says property of the police deparment on it, you'd have no reason to assume it belong to them. And if I found some unmarked metal box on my car, I'm pretty sure there is nothing preventing me from removing it.
On the other hand, if it does say, property of the police, I'd just return it to them.... stick it to the next parked patrol car i see. :)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day?
No.
If yes then I believe this should require a warrant.
But its no.
Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Good point. I wonder if the police would object if I went up to their patrol cars, ghost cars, and other vehicles and slapped my own gps transmitters on them, and then published their whearabouts in realtime on google maps. I mean, I could do all this legally if I just had a bunch of people follow their cars around all day and post their whearabouts, right?
So whats the diff except that it costs much less and is more discrete?
Yet, something tells me the police would object strenuously to this.
If they attach it to my car without my permission, doesn't it become MINE to do whatever I want with?
Good question. I'd think you could take it off and toss it in a dumpster if you found it.
Seriously, how many of these do they really expect to recover and download data from? Plus, doesn't it become "theft of services" the minute they hook it up to my car's electrical system?
I doubt they wire it in. Its probably just battery operated and attached magnetically, probably lasts 5-10 days, before they go pick it up/swap it out.
Really for Linux to win they just need to know it isn't Windows.
It might actually be in linux's favor if users don't even know that.
Although I admit that some judges have been stupid enough to buy it, that argument is bullshit
For what its worth, I agree it SHOULD be bullshit. The trouble is that the courts ARE buying it.
Look at it this way: If the models predicted that only 1% of systems had a closely orbiting gas giant, wouldn't the amount of close gas giants we have detected already disprove the models?
Based on the fact that we have closely orbiting gas giants known in some 6%+ of local systems, then yes, that would disprove the models.
That is what they seem to be saying here. And again, the probability that gas giants migrate inwards to close orbits comes from the simulations and not any observational data. That alone is enough to say that our solar system is rare.
Our old model is wrong. The new model is better because it fits more observed data. The new model also predicts that our solar system is rare, which makes it a useful model... it gives us testable predictions.
The next step is to test that prediction, not write headlines about how our solar system is rare.
The simple fact that new model was built around fitting the observed data means that it is biased to solving that problem.
To me, this is sort of like the 'dark matter' problem, where the vast majority of the universe is 'missing', but inferred to exist based on gravitational effects. I find it difficult to swallow that 96% of the universe has evaded detection. To me it is equally rational to assert that our model of gravity is incomplete/incorrect as it is to assert that almost all energy in the universe has evaded detection.
Similiarly, presenting conclusions as 'likely facts' from a model of planet formation that accounts for 5% of local stars, when we still can't see whats at the other 95%, and we know the 5% we can see have a major selection bias in that having massive inner orbit gas giants is precisely the only type of planet system we can reliably see, seems a little ridiculous.
I know the selection bias is the first thing that comes to mind when looking at this article, but I guarantee you that everyone who works in this field knows about it and takes it into account.
I think I can accept that. But it seems everyone who reports on this field doesn't.
Yes, there is such a distinction from the start -- copyright protects distribution, not use.
copyright protects *copy rights* including: copying, redistribution, performance, and broadcast.
You need a specific contract if you want your license to speak to use. For distribution, you
reserve all rights under copyright law, license or no license.
What difference does it make when "using" the software entails making a copy to your hard drive, and then another copy into ram, and then another copy into cache? Using it entails copying it.
If I have no license to use it, I can't make those copies.
So you can't use it without a license.
And the courts have ALREADY made rulings that apply copyright infringement to occurring in an unauthorized 'disk to RAM' copy made by that WoW cheat program. (glider?)