Slashdot Mirror

Wow. [citation needed] much? Let's go down the list, shall we?

1) Not only can I find no evidence of a $500M figure ever having existed before your comment, but if they had made a settlement for a half billion dollars, Sony wouldn't exist today. Their operating income last year was just $342M (source). Fat chance that Sony could survive a $500M settlement hit. By all indications (i.e. because it's not mentioned in their annual filings from that year and there are no followup stories to be found), this did not impact their bottom line in any sort of meaningful way.

2) As for what the settlement actually was, they paid up to $150-175 per customer that damaged their PC in an attempt to remove the rootkit (see here), plus $5.75M in settlements to various states (source). That's it. It probably cost them less than $10M to settle the whole thing.

3) For a quick example of a company that can take a hit like the one you talked about, we all remember the Microsoft EU antitrust case from a few years back, right? The one regarding media players, where they were fined roughly $600M, and had followup fines of roughly $250M and $1.44B, all of which were extensively covered in the news since they were, at the time, the largest fines ever handed down by the EU (more info). But Microsoft was able to absorb the hit. Of course, they could do that since their operating income last year was about $24B (source), which is roughly 70x that of Sony's.

4) As for your DOJ claims, I can't find anything about government computers being infected (though I wouldn't doubt it) or the DOJ being involved at all. In fact, they never got involved, despite the public outcry and requests that a criminal investigation be launched.

Aside from government computers getting infected, is anything you said true, or are you just routinely off by a few orders of magnitude when quoting figures, as well as prone to making up stories that have little basis in fact?

Here's a Nomad review from almost a year before Apple's iPod annoucement.

BTW... Happy 10th anniversary on that review.

No, it was not.

As was noted on Slashdot at the time:
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."

Here's a Nomad review from almost a year before Apple's iPod annoucement.

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/ego.html

* Test Drive of The i2Go eGo with IBM MicroDrive.
by Richard Menta 9/01/00

*snip*

More Options

*snip*

Want more options? I2Go MP3Agent, the software that comes with the player, has text-to-speech capabilities designed to translate the morning email into MP3 files to listen to on the commute in. This culd be a lifesaver to busy dot-com employees who get backlogged with a hundred messages.

MyAudio2Go.com

One of the best options available from the folks at i2Go is a website they created called MyAudio2Go.com. On this site you can download daily news stories in MP3 format. You can select articles covering the top news stories, sports, business and finance, even recaps of a dozen or so television shows like ER. We loved this site and the best news is you don't need an i2Go to download and play these files. Check this site out!

*snip*

Final Score A-

Copyright 2000 MP3 Newswire. All rights reserved.

From August 5th BigChampagne Challenges Nielsen With New Ratings Service http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/9002/bcdash.html

And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.... if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)

From what I have read, it is just about anybody that is being sued by the RIAA. You don't have to be downloading music, you don't have to own a computer, you don't have to know how to use a computer, and heck... you don't even have to be alive to get sued. (and be forced to settle. Or, in cases where the RIAA has no evidence, at least have your day ruined.)

And furthermore, the law does not support the RIAA's methods. They have been specifically ordered to stop abusing the system by grouping all their "John Doe" suits together, yet they blatantly ignore those orders.

That is the problem with the RIAA lawyers being in the DOJ.

You mean like this or this?

Last week Snocap got pegged as among the year's top 11 losers: 6. Snocap Laid of 60% of workforce after losing CD Baby as a customer. CD Baby founder Derek Sivers offered illuminating insight to the eight-month partnership when he pointed to a paltry earning of $1,080 during the period. Snocap is now trying to re-define the direction of the company. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/2007-losers.html

Google Throws Lead Paint on Movie Download Market http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/google-video.html

The original iPod was roughly 4.1x2.4x0.7 inches and 6.5oz

Here's a review of a 2002 Jukebox:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/nomad3.htm l
The original Jukebox had 4 hours battery; the iPod had 12, the new Jukebox lengthened it to 12.
The RAM was boosted from 8mb to 16mb... still half that of the iPod.
The Nomad Jukebox was 14oz, more than twice the weight
The Nomad Jukebox measured 5x5.5x1.5, double the iPod in two dimensions (or 4x the volume). You could literally squeeze 5 iPods into the space of a Nomad Jukebox

I'm not making this up. You can read about the "past" here:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/sect/archive.htm

The original iPod was roughly 4.1x2.4x0.7 inches and 6.5oz

Here's a review of a 2002 Jukebox:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/nomad3.htm l
The original Jukebox had 4 hours battery; the iPod had 12, the new Jukebox lengthened it to 12.
The RAM was boosted from 8mb to 16mb... still half that of the iPod.
The Nomad Jukebox was 14oz, more than twice the weight
The Nomad Jukebox measured 5x5.5x1.5, double the iPod in two dimensions (or 4x the volume). You could literally squeeze 5 iPods into the space of a Nomad Jukebox

I'm not making this up. You can read about the "past" here:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/sect/archive.htm

Here are a couple of commentaries from MP3 Newswire and Digital Music News on the deal. Needless to say, while no-DRM is certainly a step in the right direction they seem to agree that pricing also plays a big part in this picture. Amazon to Sell Full EMI Digital Catalog Without DRM http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/emi-amazon .html Resnikoff's Parting Shot: Amazon's Game http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051607parting/ view

Enough bad publicity?

Nope... Here is more..

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/cd_sales_2 005.html
"For the first time since Thomas Alva Eddison began selling wax cylinders, the music industry is having to deal with an informed customer (NOT consumer) base whose constituents can, and do, communicate with each other via blogs, emails, IM, chats, text messaging, and so on.

And what they're saying is: We have a choice, and we're exercising it.

If the record labels think their persecution of online customers who include schoolchildren and and disabled mothers is going unnoticed offline, they're wrong.

The WSJ doesn't mention the failure of Organized Music (Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, EMI ands Warner Music) to accept the reality that it's now in the digital 21st century and not the physical 1970s and 80s and that its business models need to be updated accordingly.

OM's members are in addition being found guilty - and very publicly - of one seamy practice after another and if they believe it'll all just go away, they'd better think again."

Just about anyone who looks at the two devices side by side will acknowledge that the Luxpro product is a clear knockoff of the original. Since that is the case, Apple was justified in seeking the injunction - it was not an abuse of power.

The injunction was granted but later overturned. FTFA:
Luxpro appealed and won subsequent lawsuits in the Taiwan High Court and the Taiwan Supreme Court. Last month, the Shihlin District Court lifted the original injunction, saying that "the appearances of the two products are significantly dissimilar".

Now, I don't actually think they are all that dissimilar, but that's only tangentially related to this countersuit. Apple's original suit, seeking the injunction, was not a frivolous move by a monopolistic juggernaut - just a company defending its interests. Apple's shareholders could have sued if Apple hand't sought the injunction.

Had Luxpro's device pre-dated Apple's, or if the two devices really were dissimilar, that would be another thing.

From an MP3 Newswire article posted on the day Zune first appeared in stores:

"Let's say that Zune immediately upends SanDisk for second place in the market, taking 11% of the marketplace. By one standard this is a significant success as only the iPod was able to grab so much market share so fast. But with Microsoft pumping ten-of-millions in ad money another standard will call Zune's barely double-digit market share a disappointment. Maybe even a modest failure.

With the free press Microsoft has generated mated to their try-to-be-hip commercials on television you can understand the argument, though I suspect the later pundits are really looking for a big market battle to muse about rather than an improved player environment that serves the consumer better. I can easily see conflicting stories in the coming weeks, all using the same figures, but interpreting them in different ways".

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/6002/Zune-intro .html

It's interesting how the best portable media player on the market today is never mentioned as an iPod Killer. That honor goes to the Sony PSP, which offers a good MP3 player and a superior video/movie player that trumps the iPod in picture quality.

Hmm. The Intel Pocket Concert mp3 player I just threw away had an AM/FM tuner. Guess I should have put it on ebay. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/pocketcrev iew.html

Here are links to an excellent three-part MP3 Newswire commentary that offers some insight into your question.

Copy Protection and the Reasonable Man
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/crime.html

CDs and the Scarcity Principle
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/scarce.htm l

Efficiency of the Market
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/efficiency .html

Here are links to an excellent three-part MP3 Newswire commentary that offers some insight into your question.

Copy Protection and the Reasonable Man
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/crime.html

CDs and the Scarcity Principle
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/scarce.htm l

Efficiency of the Market
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/efficiency .html

Here are links to an excellent three-part MP3 Newswire commentary that offers some insight into your question.

Copy Protection and the Reasonable Man
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/crime.html

CDs and the Scarcity Principle
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/scarce.htm l

Efficiency of the Market
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/efficiency .html

Creative first released their Nomad Jukebox products in early 2000:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/createjuke .html

The first iPod came out on October 23, 2001.

The Nomad Zen was a late 2002 product:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/nomadzen.h tml

Posters here already have identified the Creative patent as being one they filed on January 5, 2001. That was probably early in the design cycle for the Zen players, but before they actually were released.

I for one am glad to see Creative finally prosecuting Apple for all the technology they stole. Clearly Apple has been taking ideas from the superior Nomad products for quite some time now, and that's the only way they've been able to build the obviously derivative user interface used on the iPod.

(Note to self: turn down sarcasm knob a notch)

Creative first released their Nomad Jukebox products in early 2000:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/createjuke .html

The first iPod came out on October 23, 2001.

The Nomad Zen was a late 2002 product:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/nomadzen.h tml

Posters here already have identified the Creative patent as being one they filed on January 5, 2001. That was probably early in the design cycle for the Zen players, but before they actually were released.

I for one am glad to see Creative finally prosecuting Apple for all the technology they stole. Clearly Apple has been taking ideas from the superior Nomad products for quite some time now, and that's the only way they've been able to build the obviously derivative user interface used on the iPod.

(Note to self: turn down sarcasm knob a notch)

As I remember, this also happened to the Beastie Boys, among many others.

The record companies have their way of doing things, and it's surprising how little input the artists actually have. One of the reasons my band isn't planning on signing with a major label.

Death of the industry? I don't think so. Last time I checked, the current entertainment industry is the result of rebelling against Thomas Edison's movie monopoly. How can we be sure these so 'rebel musician' won't one day become the very threat to the society? From what I've seen, it will take only ten years for these rebels to succumb to the dark side.

For any more complex matters (grandma doesn't know how to download), the companies will probably not care.

Music Gonzalez already owned ...Gonzalez used Kazaa, "to download songs she already owned on CD onto her computer. She wanted to be able to listen to them in any order, but didn't want to manually copy her whole CD collection onto her hard drive -- she and her husband own about 250. She also used Kazaa to download a few songs she didn't own, but only to 'listen to them and determine if they were something she would be interested in purchasing'. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/cecilia_go nzalez.html

I have no idea why this isn't more broadly known, especially on this site.

Don't forget that because of the speed of todays writers, you have to multiply by at least 32!

(Scroll down to the second headline)

Sheeesh.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiogalaxy

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/agsettle.h tml I still miss audiogalaxy to this day... it's the reason I bought a cd-burner.

If you're a swimmer, here is another interesting mp3 player. It is called the SwiMP3 and it can be worn and listened to while swimming.

Another interesting thought about mp3 players: Apple's domanance with mp3 players makes it harder for other players to make a solid-state mp3 player with more than one gig of memory. The only non-Apple solid state player with over one gig is the SanDisk Sansa M250 (street price lower); this player is made by a company that makes their own flash memory. This is a shame, since the iPod Nano, in typical Steve Jobs style, uses a proprietary interface which doesn't talk with Linux well.

If one is willing to use a hard disk mp3 player, there are 60 gb 1.8 inch hard disks available; I expect to see a 60gb handheld mp3 player in the near future.

somebody posted this last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap. Sounds promising to me as a way of preserving the early days of TV. Heck, I'd pay a buck for old Zachary creature features.

Found this under Journalist in Wikipedia referring to bloggers being journalists. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/journalist .html

Found this under Journalist in Wikipedia referring to bloggers being journalists. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/journalist .html

Not portable? I'm inclined to agree, but then why are PSP movie sales through the roof? It seems that a market already exists.

If Apple can match the PSP's screen quality and beat its ease of use (by making movies downloadable, perhaps) they might have something.

You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?

Yes, I've met plenty. I doubt they'd appreciate me sharing their identity. However, statistically, P2P use is still on the rise and showing no signs of slowing.

However, requests for sources are always valid:

This story demonstrates the rise.

There are plenty of others. It is well known that Bittorrent, for example, makes up over 30% of Internet traffic, and (while I use it for them myself) that's not accounted for by Blizzard's patches and Linux distros.

It is pointless to try and stop a "crime" that millions of people are willing to permit, and even to commit. At this point, it's not a crime, it's an inevitability. Look at the failures of the various Prohibitions, for example.

Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.

I never said any of those things, so I feel no need to defend them, and in fact said that they are -not- fools. They are exploiters, they are monopolists, and they are in many ways operating at the edge or outside the edge of the law. But you don't get away with these behaviors for a century by being an idiot.

As I said none of the rest, you did, I'm not in the habit of wasting my time defending straw men.

Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.

Fair's fair, let's see YOUR sources. Indie labels overwhelmingly support and encourage filesharing, they're not about to turn down free advertising. Some even offer free downloads and a donation-based payment system right on their own website. This site has been operating for years now.

Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.

Very true. And if a business doesn't give its consumers what they obviously want, they can't make money. That is also universally accepted in very diverse areas of business.

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/psp_review .html

I remember The Offspring tried to give away an album in 2000 as mp3s on their website but had the idea shot to shit by their record label.

Sony Forces The Offspring to Cancel MP3 Giveaway.

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/suetv.html

Where are these BitTorrent servers located? The Internet is "virtual", but the MPAA raids are physical, in one country or another. Loki, SuprNova, others - in which countries are the MPAA moviecops raiding offices? MPAA claims to operate police in at least "Austria, Hong Kong, Finland, France and the Netherlands as movie industry cops". Which countries now retain their jurisdiction sovereignty, and which are now just muscle for the US adfotainment hegemony?

Why does the site carry this article comparing identifying file swappers with nazis making jews wear star of david. I'm the first to call bullshit when some Zionist uses the anti-Semite card to defend Israel, and now I'll be the first to say that the comparison between the law quoted and the precursor to the Final Solution is preposterous and trivialising an atrocious event.

"that's what lead to Gnutella 2, which is what most clients use today."

No, no it's not. Please do not imply that it is the same as Gnutella or some kind of improvement over it.
The protocol Mike Stokes released for use with Shareaza is NOT Gnutella 2, as it has not been released open source and has not been OK'ed by the rest of the Gnutella community. It is just a hacked up version of Gnutella. It is NOT in use by "most clients" at all. It is in use by Shareaza. Gnutella2.com was registered without conference and many other key issues were not communicated. "Gnutella2" remains a closed protocol, a situation many feel defeats the Gnutella name. Gnutella community members refer to it as "Mike's Protocol",or MP for short. Now the good developers of Gnutella can't release something under the Gnutella2 name, because it has been hijacked by ONE developer with his own personal agenda. For good or ill, Gnutella2 is not Gnutella.

For more information, check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnutella2/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnutella
or for a bit of discussion about it:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/gnutella2. html

Thanks. /rant

-Jude T. Seth

nokarma clickable linky : http://www.mp3newswire.net/Graphics/Jens%20MP400.j pg

Perhaps building the player into the silly little cap that she's wearing in the picture (found here for anyone else who's not quite smart enough)

Imagine that you're a 12-year-old, and have asked your parents for an iPod for Christmas (or Hanukkah or Quanza or Festivus or whatever other gift-giving celebration you might be celebrating this holiday season). Why? Because it's the accessory all of the cool kids at school are carrying around.

The big day come around, and you eagerly start ripping the wrapping paper off a promising shaped/sized box, only to find one of these. Or one of these. Or one of these. Or even one of these. Or perhaps worst of all, one of these.

You wanted an iPod, only to get an iPod wanna-be. Maybe the sales guy told your parents this one was "better", or maybe your parents saw this one had a lower price tag and bought it to save a few bucks. Perfectly good reasons for an adult -- but not for our hypothetical 12 year-old who wanted an iPod like the cool kids at school.

Particularly if the wanna-be device is going to get you osteracized from your peer group for carrying around a poor fascimile of the iPod.

That's the real problem with most of these supposed "iPod killers" -- they try too hard to look like the iPod, but without the major items that make the iPod cool.

I can't forsee any of these devices "killing" the iPod. I can't even see any of them dealing a mortal wound. Or a minor flesh wound. Or even a nick. None of these devices has the cool of the iPod brand, and many of them look like poor, el-cheapo knockoffs.

(I mean come on guys -- if you want to take on the iPod, try designing something slick, sleek, and unique -- stop trying to copy the look and feel of the iPod).

Yaz.

Imagine that you're a 12-year-old, and have asked your parents for an iPod for Christmas (or Hanukkah or Quanza or Festivus or whatever other gift-giving celebration you might be celebrating this holiday season). Why? Because it's the accessory all of the cool kids at school are carrying around.

The big day come around, and you eagerly start ripping the wrapping paper off a promising shaped/sized box, only to find one of these. Or one of these. Or one of these. Or even one of these. Or perhaps worst of all, one of these.

You wanted an iPod, only to get an iPod wanna-be. Maybe the sales guy told your parents this one was "better", or maybe your parents saw this one had a lower price tag and bought it to save a few bucks. Perfectly good reasons for an adult -- but not for our hypothetical 12 year-old who wanted an iPod like the cool kids at school.

Particularly if the wanna-be device is going to get you osteracized from your peer group for carrying around a poor fascimile of the iPod.

That's the real problem with most of these supposed "iPod killers" -- they try too hard to look like the iPod, but without the major items that make the iPod cool.

I can't forsee any of these devices "killing" the iPod. I can't even see any of them dealing a mortal wound. Or a minor flesh wound. Or even a nick. None of these devices has the cool of the iPod brand, and many of them look like poor, el-cheapo knockoffs.

(I mean come on guys -- if you want to take on the iPod, try designing something slick, sleek, and unique -- stop trying to copy the look and feel of the iPod).

Yaz.

Imagine that you're a 12-year-old, and have asked your parents for an iPod for Christmas (or Hanukkah or Quanza or Festivus or whatever other gift-giving celebration you might be celebrating this holiday season). Why? Because it's the accessory all of the cool kids at school are carrying around.

The big day come around, and you eagerly start ripping the wrapping paper off a promising shaped/sized box, only to find one of these. Or one of these. Or one of these. Or even one of these. Or perhaps worst of all, one of these.

You wanted an iPod, only to get an iPod wanna-be. Maybe the sales guy told your parents this one was "better", or maybe your parents saw this one had a lower price tag and bought it to save a few bucks. Perfectly good reasons for an adult -- but not for our hypothetical 12 year-old who wanted an iPod like the cool kids at school.

Particularly if the wanna-be device is going to get you osteracized from your peer group for carrying around a poor fascimile of the iPod.

That's the real problem with most of these supposed "iPod killers" -- they try too hard to look like the iPod, but without the major items that make the iPod cool.

I can't forsee any of these devices "killing" the iPod. I can't even see any of them dealing a mortal wound. Or a minor flesh wound. Or even a nick. None of these devices has the cool of the iPod brand, and many of them look like poor, el-cheapo knockoffs.

(I mean come on guys -- if you want to take on the iPod, try designing something slick, sleek, and unique -- stop trying to copy the look and feel of the iPod).

Yaz.

Imagine that you're a 12-year-old, and have asked your parents for an iPod for Christmas (or Hanukkah or Quanza or Festivus or whatever other gift-giving celebration you might be celebrating this holiday season). Why? Because it's the accessory all of the cool kids at school are carrying around.

The big day come around, and you eagerly start ripping the wrapping paper off a promising shaped/sized box, only to find one of these. Or one of these. Or one of these. Or even one of these. Or perhaps worst of all, one of these.

You wanted an iPod, only to get an iPod wanna-be. Maybe the sales guy told your parents this one was "better", or maybe your parents saw this one had a lower price tag and bought it to save a few bucks. Perfectly good reasons for an adult -- but not for our hypothetical 12 year-old who wanted an iPod like the cool kids at school.

Particularly if the wanna-be device is going to get you osteracized from your peer group for carrying around a poor fascimile of the iPod.

That's the real problem with most of these supposed "iPod killers" -- they try too hard to look like the iPod, but without the major items that make the iPod cool.

I can't forsee any of these devices "killing" the iPod. I can't even see any of them dealing a mortal wound. Or a minor flesh wound. Or even a nick. None of these devices has the cool of the iPod brand, and many of them look like poor, el-cheapo knockoffs.

(I mean come on guys -- if you want to take on the iPod, try designing something slick, sleek, and unique -- stop trying to copy the look and feel of the iPod).

Yaz.

Imagine that you're a 12-year-old, and have asked your parents for an iPod for Christmas (or Hanukkah or Quanza or Festivus or whatever other gift-giving celebration you might be celebrating this holiday season). Why? Because it's the accessory all of the cool kids at school are carrying around.

The big day come around, and you eagerly start ripping the wrapping paper off a promising shaped/sized box, only to find one of these. Or one of these. Or one of these. Or even one of these. Or perhaps worst of all, one of these.

You wanted an iPod, only to get an iPod wanna-be. Maybe the sales guy told your parents this one was "better", or maybe your parents saw this one had a lower price tag and bought it to save a few bucks. Perfectly good reasons for an adult -- but not for our hypothetical 12 year-old who wanted an iPod like the cool kids at school.

Particularly if the wanna-be device is going to get you osteracized from your peer group for carrying around a poor fascimile of the iPod.

That's the real problem with most of these supposed "iPod killers" -- they try too hard to look like the iPod, but without the major items that make the iPod cool.

I can't forsee any of these devices "killing" the iPod. I can't even see any of them dealing a mortal wound. Or a minor flesh wound. Or even a nick. None of these devices has the cool of the iPod brand, and many of them look like poor, el-cheapo knockoffs.

(I mean come on guys -- if you want to take on the iPod, try designing something slick, sleek, and unique -- stop trying to copy the look and feel of the iPod).

Yaz.

Actually I found the link at the bottom of the article, iRiver Turns Focus on In-Dash MP3 Players to be even more interesting. It looks like we'll finally start seeing some decent car audio MP3 offerings. I'm awfully tired of burning files to CD to play in the car. If iRiver is going to offer a model with wireless to sync up while parked in the garage, I would buy it immediately.

From the story

'Virgin Player
Another newcomer to the digital player arena is Virgin. Their first portable is the 3.1oz Virgin player, half an inch lighter than the iPod Mini's 3.6oz. The player also offers an extra GB of space coming in at 5GB for the same $250 price tag.'

Emphasis mine.

Anyone care to explain how 'half an inch' converts to ounces?

Oh god...the dirty jokes.

As previously covered, California Governer Schwartzenegger signed into law a bill "requiring anyone disseminating movies or music on the Internet to disclose their e-mail address" as well as the title of the work. Editorial here.

I'm not a lawyer (see, I spelled it out and everything), but this law was likely intended as the **AA's end-run around needing to file a "John Doe" lawsuit and then get the user's information from the ISP. If they can't identify you in a piracy civil action, it seems a **AA-friendly prosecutor can now easily root out your information as part of a criminal investigation. Unlike copyright infringement, I suspect not providing an email address is much easier to show.

Once you're identified, THEN the lawsuit could follow.

Interestingly, the law doesn't say clearly what you need to do if you don't have an email address. It's also very vague about what constitutes a "valid" e-mail address- ""E-mail address" means a valid e-mail address..." (ie, would a mailing list address to which the file-sharer subscribes qualify?).

Also, the law says "Recording" means the electronic or physical embodiment of any recorded images, sounds, or images and sounds, but does not include audiovisual works or sounds accompanying audiovisual works.

It's not just music and movies. The above suggests that anyone in California who runs a website with a copyrighted, commercial image (ie, a photograph) would be subject to this law as well. So any image on a web site would need to be identified by title.

Now, I don't know if every copyrighted, commercial image hosted on a California web site even HAS a title. So I don't see how it's even possible to comply with this.

Read this lame law for yourself.

BTW, for non-minors, the punishment for not having provided your email address is a maximum $2,500 fine and/or a year in prison.